Q&A | Horse Racing Free Tips

Q&A with USADA’s Dr. Tessa Muir

Last month, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) announced that in Dr. Tessa Muir, it had plucked from foreign shores a new hire to head its equine program at a time when the agency plays an integral role in implementing the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), overhauling the industry's governing status quo.

Before Muir joined the USADA staff roster, she had hopscotched her way up the industry ladder, from exercise rider to private veterinarian to head of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA)'s anti-doping program between 2013 and 2019. Her last position was as a regulatory veterinarian in Australia, for Racing Victoria.

Currently in the process of earning a master's degree in sports law, Muir faces an even tougher task in bringing to life the enforcement arm of racing's new regulatory framework. That's because there's much to do within a worryingly short amount of time.

Though the official implementation of HISA is set for July 1 next year, a baseline set of uniform rules–medication standards, laboratory testing accreditation rules, and racetrack safety accreditation standards–need to be squared away by the end of the year in order to meet tight administrative deadlines.

What's more, it's still unclear exactly who the enforcement agency will be when the law goes into effect. “No final agreement on USADA's involvement as the enforcement agency is currently in place,” Muir said, in a video presentation for the recent The Jockey Club Round Table Conference.

For her part, Muir tipped her hat during the Round Table to the “enormity of the task” ahead of her, saying that “USADA and myself personally are absolutely committed to our role in the inception of HISA, whether that ultimately sees USADA running the program, or contributing its expertise to the development of harmonizing rules and best practices in anti-doping.”

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority–the broad non-profit umbrella established by the law and commonly referred to as just the “Authority”–is expected to unveil important program specifics at an unspecified date this fall.

To try to elicit some details before then, the TDN this week sat down with Muir. The following has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Coady

DR: What's your initial takeaway from these first few weeks on the job?

TM: I actually started with USADA in April, so, I've been working with them for a while. The first month here [in the U.S.] has been a little bit of a whirlwind getting settled into a new country.

I've been really excited and encouraged by the engagement we've had with the people we've spoken to. Of course, we've started working with the Authority and their anti-doping and medication control committee, and then, I spent a week in Saratoga leading up to the Round Table, spending time with their state commission vets and the racetrack vets.

We've had our head down working really hard to deliver on some of the other things we need to. There are some challenges that are not unsurmountable if everyone works together and collaborates.

DR: Okay, so when it comes to HISA, given how we don't yet know who will run the enforcement arm of the law, what can you tell industry stakeholders looking at the ticking clock and worrying about the current lack of available specifics?

TM: As I've alluded to, we've got our heads down working really hard with the Authority to develop a set of rules. As you'll have heard, with what the chairman of the Authority [Charles Scheeler] said, the intention is that they'll be ready for socialization to the industry this fall.

HISA passing is the first component of it. The development of these rules and regulations is the second part. Then [comes] the specifics for USADA, and USADA becoming the enforcement agency.

I think we're all keen to get there ASAP. Of course, the rules go into effect on the first of July next year. But as you and the industry can appreciate, there are a number of things to work through given the expanse of the program for it all to come together.

Coady

DR: How well placed is USADA to manage what would appear a significant increase in testing volume, even if it's just in an oversight role? Does it have the necessary personnel?

TM: The intent is not to totally reinvent the wheel. There are good practices in place that can be leveraged. We will look to utilize existing infrastructure–for example, in testing barns where it's possible.

I think something else that comes into the mix is how technology might play a key role in running the program. To some extent, when you look at USADA's team, they've begun to expand the team to administer the program. But certainly, there's going to be a need for people who can leverage the existing structures.

DR: When it comes to HISA's approach to the public reporting of testing, what can we expect? Will there be greater transparency concerning all horses who are tested and not just the positives, for example? How will you approach the reporting of out-of-competition testing?

TM: There's a need for transparency in competition–for race day and in the out-of-competition component. If you look at USADA's history, they've been huge advocates for transparency and for sharing testing data.

If you look on their website, you can search for an individual athlete and see how many times they've been tested in a year or in a quarter, which I think is a really positive thing.

On the equine side, we definitely want to publish testing data. I think there's a balance–you want to publish and be transparent to the point it doesn't compromise the integrity of the independent testing program you've got in place.

DR: Are you able though to talk about what you think may be made public?

TM: It's probably a little too early to delve into specifics. There are things we've discussed with the Authority. If you take USADA's example of what there is with human sports, you can search any individual athlete by name, and you can see how many times they've been tested within that breakdown.

You can also look to other racing jurisdictions where they already publish some of this data, such as in Racing Victoria. After the race day, they publish a report on what horses got tested, pre-race and post-race.

Coady

Without saying we've landed on a specific final picture of what it might look like, I think that gives you a nice example of where there are standards already set where we can look and say, 'Where can we expand on that to give the public transparency?'

Note: Click here for USADA's athlete test history database.

Click here for an example of a Racing Victoria post-race day stewards' report.

DR: You said in your Jockey Club Round Table presentation that it'll take a while before USADA's “gold standard” anti-doping infrastructure will be implemented. What kind of timetable are you envisaging?

TM: We've got the first July deadline for next year. We need a program in place that's robust and covers the essentials. One of the big bits are the rules that need to be in place to get that uniformity. Looking forward, maybe it'll take 18 to 24 months to reach that gold standard of our independent program.

You've got to look at developing laboratory standards and their capabilities, the intel and investigations of course take shape over time, and a smart testing program similar to what USADA use in their human world–you've got to develop that data to drive that forward. And again, we'll be looking at technology as one of the key components to finesse that program.

As is the case with the human program, things never stand still. We work hard every single day to continually improve and adjust and refine the program.

DR: You use that 18-month timeframe. On a very practical level, what tangible differences can industry stakeholders expect to see between implementation on July 1 next year and then 18 months from then?

TM: The real tangibles you'll see on day one is the uniformity in the rules and some of those basic interactions and processes.

The development is still to be determined in many ways–as much as we can get in on day one the better. But of course, things like the smart testing program and refining how you select horses for testing, and the things you learn as you collate and collect data, it will of course evolve over that period of time.

Getting all the laboratories to a baseline and then developing that side of it–that's probably not the front-facing side of it, it's probably the development and the refinements behind the scenes.

The labs are really good ones to look at because developing new methodologies, investigative equipment and all that kind of stuff, takes time, and so, we're looking at: What do we need on day one for the program to function as a robust program? And then, how can we look to develop that going forward?

Coady

DR: Anti-doping deterrence costs money, and I think it's fair to say the financial component is of central concern to most stakeholders. What specifics can you share about what they can expect when it comes to costs, and specifically anti-doping deterrence and prevention costs?

TM: I think that's slightly two questions. The prevention and deterrence side is multi-factorial. It's not an isolated area. We've got education, out-of-competition no-notice testing, tip lines and investigations.

It's not an expensive cost per-se developing those rules and having those consistent results management arbitration processes–sanctions that deter those bad athletes. That covers deterrence and prevention as a whole.

On the question of the cost, that's probably the number one question that everyone asks. I think one of the challenges at the moment is that there's not any one currently accepted understanding of what the total cost and total amount currently being spent is. So, getting a handle on that is quite difficult to know: How is it going to be more expensive, and by how much?

As the chairman alluded to at the Round Table, he said publicly that they anticipate the costs are going to go up, and of course, that's to be expected for an enhanced and more effective program of the scale we're looking at here.

It's a comparatively small investment–I'm not saying it's necessarily a small amount of money, not to belittle the amount–but a comparatively small investment in protecting the fairness of clean racing for all our horsemen and obviously the health and welfare of the horses and the longevity of the sport in the future.

As far as what the actual dollar amount is, as [Scheeler] said, that's still being worked on at the moment. It's hard not having that really clear-cut number on what's currently being spent. There's money being spent in a lot of different areas currently.

DR: When it comes to the everyday adjudication of medication violations, Jockey Club vice chairman Bill Lear told me recently there'll likely be a tiered approach in the beginning, with the severity of the infraction governing which set of regulatory personnel–either the state's or USADA's–will handle the hearing. Could you elaborate on that?

TM: From a top-level look at it, the results management and adjudication process will come under the banner of the enforcement agency, so assuming that is USADA, USADA will be responsible for any of the anti-doping rule violations that occur.

As [Lear] alluded to, certainly looking at a tiered approach for that. The specifics will be made a lot clearer when the socialization process happens with the industry.

Sarah Andrew

DR: Obviously, a key issue with the current status quo is the glacial pace at which violations are adjudicated. Do you see a scenario whereby that process is expedited come July 1 next year?

TM: The intention is to have a streamlined process, but of course, there is the [matter] of due process, and that's something that is probably better answered by someone [in the] legal [department]. Obviously, we have a legal team at USADA that deals with the human side. The processes and the streamlined nature of that will become more evident when the arbitration procedures and the rules are socialized in the fall.

DR: One of USADA's big selling points is its educational programs for human sports. What will HISA's education outreach look like for racing? And how will you make sure everyone in the sport–irrespective of language barriers–gets access to the necessary information?

TM: You've made a great point that the education component of any anti-doping and medication program is a foundation to the success of the program.

There's a variety of ways to actually deliver that information in an effective way. Something we'll be looking to is a level of education in place ahead of the first of July 2022, because people will need to understand what the new requirements are. And of course, some of that will be developed beyond that.

The point about language is a really good one. That's something we're cognizant of as we look to start developing and creating education materials, ensuring that those people who need to be communicated with, and to engage with the process, can do so.

There are a lot of parties beyond just the trainers and the grooms who touch these horses on a day-to-day basis, and therefore, we want to be in the best position possible to give people the tools to comply with the rules.

DR: Have you started putting these materials together?

TM: Specific materials? No. First of all, before you can design educational materials, we need rules that we can educate people on. And so, at the moment, it's not our number one priority.

But as far as concepts and looking at good ideas–I've certainly done a few of the USADA education tools online to get an idea of some of the things that might be great to leverage.

Read part one and part two of our recent series digging down into the particulars of HISA.

The post Q&A with USADA’s Dr. Tessa Muir appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Get The Scoop On Horse Feed From An Equine Nutritionist

Let's go back in time to 1821—for sake of entertainment, you can be a horse.

You're a drafty fellow, and there are fields to plow, wagons and carriages to pull and the five-day workweek has yet to be heard of, especially for a horse out on the farm. Like the steady workhorse that you are, you're hoofing 10 to 15 hours per day, expending a lot of energy and calories. Your source of food includes grazing low-quality forage (hungry yet?).

Dr. Jyme Nichols, director of nutrition at Stride Animal Health, says this is about the time cereal grains were introduced into horses' diets. The grains most popular and accessible to feed horses included corn, barley and oats. Knowing horses required higher levels of fiber, as it's safest for them and their diet, oats had the highest level of fiber and was a natural choice to feed for extra calories that provided horses with extra energy.

“Fast forward to present day – we have horses kept in stalls or in small turnouts, and they may have very limited hours of riding. That horse that used to work 10, 12 or 14 hours a day now maybe only works an hour a day when we have time to ride them. The rest of the time, they spend eating. But they are still receiving the same concentrated grain meal that we were giving them many years ago when they were working so hard. If you take a high-starch feed like that and overfeed them, you can make a horse very excitable or crazy,” said Dr. Nichols during an interview with Valley Vet Supply.

Equine nutrition is complex – there is no sugar-coating that; however, Dr. Nichols warns there is plenty of “sugar-coating” when it comes to our horse's grain choices, and that along with high starch are just a few aspects to consider relating to our horse's nutritional program.

With insight from Dr. Nichols, let's review top equine nutrition FAQs.

Does my horse need supplements?

The answer to that is never black or white. It depends on what you are doing with your horse; how old your horse is; whether you're feeding your horse a forage-only diet or whether your horse is on feed. It also depends on if your horse is dealing with certain problems, like if they have arthritis, gut issues or specific needs that are outside of what we would consider 'normal,' more basic nutritional needs.

Does protein make horses hot?

No, it doesn't. It is the starch and sugars in what you are feeding that make horses hot. There is some confusion about protein—it's commonly thought that horses need more feed, more protein and more nutrients, so we're going to feed this higher-protein feed. But what owners may not realize, is that when they were feeding that higher-protein feed, they were also feeding more of it. It wasn't necessarily the high protein that was making the horses become excitable. It was the fact they were feeding a really large volume of a high-starch, high-sugar feed.

Nutritionally, how can I manage or prevent a “hot” horse?

If you have a horse that is naturally more excitable and anxious, one of the better things you can do is look for a diet that is high in fiber and pull your calories from fat sources. Those fat sources are called “cool energy calories,” meaning it gives horses the calories that they need, but it's not going to make their mind and their attitude hot and excitable. For energetic horses, avoid high starch feeds. Refer to the feed tag for the “NSC,” which is the combination of starch and sugar. “NSC” stands for non-structural carbohydrates. You get to that number by adding the starch number on the feed tag to the sugar level. As a general rule of thumb for feeds considered “low starch,” if you were to add the starch and the sugar together, that number shouldn't be over 22 percent.

Can sugars impact certain horse health conditions?

For PPID horses or Cushing's horses, starch and sugar are really important in the diet to help manage. If you have a horse with a medical sensitivity, such as a horse with Cushing's, laminitis or equine metabolic syndrome – the medical sensitivity to sugar means you need to make sure that your NSC is under 12 percent. After that, you want to make sure you're feeding at the recommended levels of the feed. If you're not – and let's say that particular feed calls for 6 pounds per day and you're only feeding those horses 3 pounds per day, you're shorting them in important trace minerals or vitamins.

How do you nutritionally manage a horse that ties up frequently?

There is not a generic answer. But keep horses off green grass [which has higher sugar content]; feed low-starch, low-sugar feed; and make sure you have a proper balance of trace minerals, macro nutrients and vitamins. Also, ensure they have daily exercise.

How do I know if my hay is meeting their basic needs?

First off, do a visual check and body condition assessment of your horse. Look at rib cover – you should be able to easily feel but not easily see, ribs. Next, you'll want to look at the topline. You want the horse's topline to be essentially flat. If they can hold water on their spine on a rainy day, that tells you they're in a bit of an excess body condition. But if rain were to pour on them and just run off, and their spine peaks up like a mountain, then that tells you their body condition is probably a bit under. But the most concrete thing you can do is get your hay tested. Getting that information is the most important thing you can do, because forage is the foundation of your horse's diet and it is so important to understand what you are feeding.

Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part Two

After 15 years as California's equine medical director, Dr. Rick Arthur has stepped away from the post. A vocal proponent of tightened welfare practices in the sport, Arthur has spearheaded during his tenure a slew of equine safety reforms that have made California arguably the most stringent regulatory environment in the States. Arthur's forthrightness, however, has led to him staking out positions that have at times proven polarizing.

The day after Arthur officially stepped down, he conducted a Q&A with the TDN, the first part of which can be seen here. In it, he discussed his tenure as California racing's chief veterinarian, the impending implementation of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), and the recent controversy stirred up by a Washington Post report into his investigation into a series of sudden deaths among Bob Baffert trainees between 2011 and 2013.

The following is the concluding half of the interview. It has been edited only very lightly for grammatical and clarification purposes.

TDN: Another Washington Post story from earlier this week details a 23-page California deputy attorney general analysis of the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB)'s handling of the Justify case in which it states, “The court could find the CHRB abused its discretion and acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary fact.” Now, you've repeatedly said that the only part of the CHRB's handling of the case that concerned you was the secrecy aspect. If you could go back and redo that whole case, would you do anything differently?

RA: First of all, the case was handled at the recommendation of staff counsel in Sacramento, after consulting with attorneys in the business consumer services and housing agency which oversees the CHRB and with the attorney general's office. That is what was proposed. I certainly agreed with that, in accordance with California law. The dismissal of those cases was done entirely in accordance with regulations and California law.

There is no question that the only person who questions it is obviously Darrell Vienna [attorney representing plaintiff Mick Ruis], who planted the story with the Washington Post. I told the reporter he was being played. But anyway, that's a different issue. The only issue as far as I was concerned was that it was unfair to disqualify this horse when we were going through a process simply because of bureaucratic inefficiency by the California Horse Racing Board. I won't get into the details about why that was the case, but if you go back and look at the regulatory structure or the regulatory processes in California or of the CHRB at that time, I think it's pretty easy to see.

Since then, just to be clear, there have been five scopolamine positives in California. Not one trainer was sanctioned. Not one horse was disqualified. That doesn't include almost a dozen other horses that had scopolamine in their samples below the international screen limit that we use in the laboratory. So, I really have no regrets over it. I have no apologies.

You're talking about information that was provided, most likely, by [CHRB] commissioner Oscar Gonzales, who used to work for Darrell Vienna, to Darrell Vienna to promote this story because it just lost in a court case in superior court. So, where this is going to go, I don't know. But we had a reporter that was played by a plaintiff's attorney as far as I'm concerned.

TDN: Are you saying that Commissioner Gonzales was the one who leaked the document?

RA: I don't know if Oscar was the one, but Oscar has certainly been the proponent of keeping the Justify issue alive. Actually, I filed a whistleblower complaint against Commissioner Gonzales for basically arguing the Justify case as if he was representing Ruis with talking points that were clearly provided by Darrell Vienna.

TDN: When did you file that?

RA: Over a year ago.

Horsephotos

TDN: Has anything happened?

RA: No, I haven't heard back and the state auditor's office told me not to expect to hear back. I'm sure Commissioner Gonzales knows that I filed a whistleblower complaint. I think I haven't hidden my disdain for Commissioner Gonzales for a long time.

There certainly have been attorneys that have tried to play commissioners over the years. And I think that we have an ambitious petty politician that wants to make a name for himself that allowed himself to be played. The Justify case was dismissed in accordance to state law, and it was not dismissed by Rick Arthur. It was not dismissed by [former CHRB executive director] Rick Baedeker. It was dismissed by the board, which is required by law. And that was done properly in accordance to law.

It is a done deal as far as I'm concerned, as much as people would like to keep it alive.

TDN: Now, you brought up the equine safety improvements that have occurred in California. We've made large demonstrable strides forward in that regard. But economically, the sport faces any number of serious challenges. What do you think it needs to do to ensure its longevity and sustainability?

RA: It's a real challenge to maintain the economic health of horse racing and make sure that we're doing everything right by the horse. They don't always go in the same direction. For example, we've raced almost 50% of our starts on the turf course here on a meet that is almost six months long. That really puts a lot of stress on the turf course. But that's where people like to run their horses. You have to have full fields.

We'd obviously like to have breaks so that the turf course could be in better condition. Maybe we need an additional turf course. I don't know exactly what it would be. But we do have to make it more economically viable for the owners, otherwise they're not going to [be able to afford] the PET or MRI [scans], all the other diagnostic techniques and examinations that we now require. So, somehow we have to improve the economics. But the key to sustainability is to make sure that we are taking care of the horse.

Sarah Andrew

TDN: Do you think any of these safety measures are overkill?

RA: I don't know if they're overkill. They're maybe a little bit further than we need to go. But I think we'll sort those out over time.

TDN: Which ones?

RA: For example, a 30-day stand down for fetlock injections with corticosteroids. Not unreasonable, but probably more than needs to be required.

[Note: Arthur subsequently clarified his remarks that his frustration is with what can be the “inability” to regulate in a “meaningful way,” and pointed out that most international racing authorities use at most a 14-day corticosteroid injection stand down.]

TDN: Do you think racing in California is in better shape now than when you first took your position?

RA: I think in terms of the regulations, I think we're in better shape now. I do think that we have lost some public support for horse racing that is going to be very hard to get back. I think we're always going to be under the gun. The animal rights activists are never going to be satisfied with horse racing, just like they aren't satisfied with any other animal use.

California's an odd state that way–most people don't know anything about horses. They don't know a lot about animals. There's not that rural background. Not very many people were raised on farms or around animals. So, there's really kind of a disconnect about how animals should be used in society, and that may not be sustainable for a long period of time.

I think the horse racing structure is in very good shape to go forward. But whether it will satisfy the public in California, I think is going to be hard to predict. I mean we've decreased fatalities, like I said, by 75%. Is that good enough? We will never have racing when there's zero fatalities, just like there will never be flying with zero crashes. I mean, that's just the reality of it.

Horsephotos

TDN: How real an existential threat do you think that is to California racing?

RA: I think it's a real existential threat to racing in California. The Santa Anita fiasco really exposed horse racing to people who weren't paying attention. The racing press understood that horses were injured in racing. The non-racing press really had no idea.

The type of questions that I had from reporters who had never covered racing before, never covered sport, were pretty astounding. I think a lot of people didn't realize that there are fatalities in horse racing. I think it came as a big surprise. And when you look at the numbers, it can be pretty frightening. I'm talking about nationally–there's a lot of horses in training.

TDN: How successful has the sport been thus far in challenging that narrative and what do we need to do better?

RA: I think we pride ourselves on the care we give our horses. There are certainly risks associated with it, just like there is with a lot of different production agriculture. But, I mean, [compare that] to the wild horses out in the fields, which have a life expectancy of about a third of what the horses that are managed have. I think sometimes people don't understand how well we take care of horses, and I think we have to present that message.

It used to be that people came around to the barns, look at the horses and pet them. A lot of people have never touched a horse, and I think if they get that interaction with the horse, that's something that we can sell.

To me, racing is a sport. Horses are athletes. I'm not involved in the gambling aspect of it myself. Gambling pays for the sport for the rest of us. Obviously it's a business. Gambling is key to it and getting horses and getting full field sizes or having the more races, the better the business model. But really to me, I think we have to sell the sport more than we do.

Horsephotos

TDN: What advice would you like to give to your successor, Dr. [Jeff] Blea?

RA: Well, I think Dr. Blea is well suited for this position. He's been in national leadership positions. He certainly is aware of controversy, which comes with this job. You can't avoid it if you're going to do the job right. I think the real issue is to do what you think is right and stand up for what you think is right.

TDN: And what's next for you?

RA: I'm still going to stay involved. I'm still involved in national and international organizations. I'll continue to do that. I've certainly had some opportunities that I'm mulling over in the future. But how hard I want to work? I really don't know.

I have some research projects that [are] still in the works. I'm involved with the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, RMTC [Racing Medication and Testing Consortium]–those sorts of things that I'm going to continue to do. And the Oak Creek Charitable Foundation as well. So, I'll keep involved in those.

The post Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part Two appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part One

After 15 years as California's equine medical director, Dr. Rick Arthur has stepped away from the post.

A long-time vocal champion, both in his home state and at the international level, of tightened welfare practices in the sport, Arthur has spearheaded a slew of precedent-setting medication and equine safety reforms in California.

During those 15 years, Arthur has been at the helm of the industry's veterinary ship while California has navigated a series of tumultuous storms, including a benighted venture to switch from dirt to synthetic racetrack surfaces during the first few years of his tenure, as well as the Santa Anita welfare crisis that erupted near the beginning of 2019. Known on occasion to be pugnacious and forthright, Arthur has also endured his fair share of criticism as California racing's chief equine veterinarian, most recently concerning the case surrounding Justify's scopolamine positive subsequent to the horse's GI Santa Anita Derby victory of 2018.

Bearer of many hats, Arthur is a former private veterinarian, Thoroughbred owner and breeder, and a member of The Jockey Club. He was also a past-president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) and was honored with the organization's President's Award in 2014. Dr. Jeff Blea, a SoCal-based private veterinarian with 28 years of experience and another former AAEP president, has filled Arthur's vacant seat.

The following is the opening half of a conversation Arthur conducted with the TDN on his first day off the job. It has been edited only very lightly for grammatical and clarification purposes.

TDN: After 15 years as California's equine medical director, what is your main takeaway from that period?

RA: My main takeaway is that horse racing has to pay attention to the horse and develop policies and programs and regulations that put the horse first.

TDN: And looking at the totality of what's happened during those 15 years, has California been successful at doing that?

RA: If you look at the numbers objectively, we've decreased fatalities almost 75% over that period. Some of it is [due to] decreased racing, but far and away, the majority is [due to] the policies and the regulations we put in place and [by] encouraging the culture change to put the horse first.

TDN: How would you characterize that “culture change” during your tenure?

RA: Up until the Santa Anita situation in 2019, I don't think a lot of horsemen really understood that society has changed and that it's necessary to make changes that put the horse first. And there certainly was a lot of push-back when you look at things like the fatality review program, when you look at voided claims, to the continuing education program, to put more science into the art of training. All those things we had tremendous push-back on really until the Santa Anita fiasco.

Horsephotos

TDN: You bring that up. So, the last two years has arguably been the most transformative period in California in terms of medication and safety reforms, many of which you'd been trying to push through prior. You've talked a lot about the cumbersome administrative law process, but why do you think it took something like the Santa Anita welfare crisis to bring about those modifications?

RA: It is very easy to stop regulations in the way that the California Horse Racing Board [CHRB] operated previously. And if you go back and look at all those initiatives that we started–continuing education for trainers, voiding claims, third party Lasix, post-mortem review programs, restricting intraarticular injections, even banning anabolic steroids back when I first started–there was always somebody who was opposing those changes. Even lowering toe grabs that were demonstrated to be associated with increased injury. There was always push-back at every step.

As I said, it's very easy to stop a regulation. Even though everybody thinks that it's easy to add regulations, it's actually just the opposite.

TDN: Immediately after the Santa Anita crisis, these changes arrived very suddenly, a mixture of in-house rules that dictated state policy and sweeping regulations that came thick and fast. Looking back, do you think it was done in a manner that was, in its entirety, fair to the horsemen and their livelihoods, and would you have done things differently given a second chance?

RA: Well remember that many of those were initiated by The Stronach Group.

TDN: That's what I meant by in-house rules…

RA: Some of them were a major change to trainers. In reality, I think some of them were a little bit stricter than they needed to be and done a little bit precipitously. But the fact is, it did open the door for many changes that have been shown to be quite effective.

TDN: Multi-factorial is the key term in any catastrophic injury and in the case of what happened at Santa Anita, official reports point to a variety of precipitating factors. What do you see is the main factor which made that particular Santa Anita winter/spring meet so deadly?

RA: Racing on a bad racetrack.

TDN: Can you elaborate on that?

RA: Look at the weather in the first two months of 2019–the previous year, 90% of the starts were on a fast track. In 2019 for the first two months, 60% of the race starts were on a fast track. We had so much rain during that period of time, there was really not an opportunity to refurbish the racetrack.

In early March, when they stopped racing, we had a dry period. They were able to bring in their previous track superintendent to rework the racetrack. And after that period of time, we really had a relatively safe racetrack. So, the real issue was continuing to race on a compromised racetrack. And it's not just the racetrack that's responsible for that, but horsemen that actually entered their horses and trained their horses on tracks that were not ideal.

TDN: Many see The Stronach Group's ban of Jerry Hollendorfer as an act of scapegoating. Do you think they [TSG] were right to ban him?

RA: I was not involved in that decision.

[Note: Arthur explained that he's involved in ongoing litigation between Hollendorfer and several entities in California, and was therefore unable to comment further]

Horsephotos

TDN: Now, the changes have been extensive over the last two years but we've a lot more on the horizon. In exactly a year's time, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act is expected to be implemented. How do you see it fitting into California's existing regulatory and safety and welfare infrastructure?

RA: It will be very, very difficult for the [HISA] safety program to come up with a program as extensive as California's and send it around the rest of the country. That suggests to me that California will still continue to have a stricter, or let's say a more robust, safety program than HISA is going to be able to develop.

How will that actually work? In my reading of the regulation, it's hard to understand because the funds for that safety program will no longer be available to the CHRB–those are some of the nebulous aspects of the HISA law as to exactly how those funds will be developed and how they'll be distributed.

For example, in California we have monitoring veterinarians as a matter of law. As of right now, those are provided by the track associations. That [would conceivably] be something the regulatory agency would oversee. But those individuals are supervised by law and by regulation and by the CHRB official veterinarians. So, how that all mixes together I think is going to be a real challenge for HISA to sort out.

TDN: Ultimately, do you see it as a plus or a minus to California racing?

RA: I suspect it's going to be a step back. I think eventually, long-term for national racing, I certainly understand the need for HISA. I think the national state-by-state regulation of racing and organizations like the ARCI have found themselves incapable of developing a national sport. NTRA was supposed to have a legal office that never came to be either. So, having one entity with control over all of racing, I certainly understand the need for it. And I think it's really, probably, the only way racing is going to survive long term.

TDN: Arguably, the biggest problem in drug testing in the future concerns the detection of genetically engineered products like EPO that mimic the body's own hormones and proteins. If USADA is HISA's drug enforcement agency, do you think they'll do a better job of policing these substances than the sport already does?

RA: It really depends. I certainly know that USADA and WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] have capabilities in looking at gene doping. The IFHA [International Federation of Horseracing Authorities] has gene doping committees as well. In fact, there's liaison between WADA and the IFHA that I'm involved with. I do think that genetic testing, particularly gene doping, is going to be a real challenge, very expensive. So, I do think having a central entity is going to be critical to addressing that threat.

I don't think you could do it state by state, even though the best school, UC Davis, has some very, very talented people that understand genetics very well. But it's going to take it an international effort to address the risk of gene doping and gene manipulation.

TDN: So, what you're saying is USADA brings…

RA: …They bring international cooperation. It looks as if, even though USADA is different than WADA–certainly internationally–the racing industry is teaming with the FEI [The International Federation for Equestrian Sports], IFHA and WADA to try to pool our resources and understand the risks of how detection of gene doping and gene manipulation could affect horse racing going forward, and how to test for it.

Breeders' Cup/Eclipse Sportswire

TDN: Knowing what you know, how prolific is gene doping and gene manipulation in the sport?

RA: Right now, there is no evidence that it is being used. However, this is an area that has made leaps and bounds in advancement since we started the IFHA gene doping subcommittee five, six years ago. It's an entirely different environment today.

I do think there are potential risks in terms of getting genes or administering genes to horses. The real problem with gene doping is it's easy to get a gene in a horse, but it's not easy to get it to do what you want it to do. Well, that's true of even gene therapy and other uses of gene manipulation.

Having said that, I do think it's a bigger risk today than it was five years ago. And there is a lot of advancement in this area that caused us concern. But as of right now, I know of no instance internationally of gene doping being used in horse racing. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. That doesn't mean it's not going on. We're looking for it.

TDN: In the last month, The Washington Post has come out with a couple of reports, in one of which it's alleged that trainer Bob Baffert used political coercion against you to influence the outcome of your investigation into the series of sudden deaths among his trainees between 2011 and 2013. In the final report, you concluded that although the blanket prescribing of thyroxine to all Baffert horses does appear unusual, “The fatalities remain unexplained and there is no evidence whatsoever CHRB rules or regulations have been violated or illicit activity played a part.”

You told the Post the two things–the political pressure and the report's findings–were unrelated. If you were to conduct the investigation today, would the findings and the outcome be any different?

RA: No. If you look in the necropsy reports that are up on the CHRB website, you'll see that there's all different sorts of explanations that are associated with some of the sudden deaths.

One of them was an anticoagulant rodenticide. We had a number of cases in California over the following years that were associated with anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning, including ponies, so it's not as if somebody was trying to drug a pony with rat poison. So, the real issue is that there were no violations of CHRB rules.

That does not mean that you condone the blanket administration of thyroxine. And certainly, if you look at my comments, either during the presentation at the CHRB meeting or in the report, Bob Baffert trains his horses hard. They were all on thyroxine. A number of them were on clenbuterol at the same time. And all of that, even though there's no violation of rules, really reflects on Bob Baffert's management of his stable.

If you look, there's actually a statistical analysis that shows this was not a random event, that there's something that was associated with those horses–whether it was Hollywood Park, whether it was Bob Baffert, whether it's the way the horses were managed, thyroxine, the entire program–there was something associated with those horses that put them at greater risk than the average horse. We just didn't know what it was.

TDN: Given the ethical framework that you abide by, how would you characterize the way Baffert managed his barn?

RA: The way the barn was managed was to win races–win big races with very expensive horses.

Horsephotos

TDN: Ethically–by your ethical framework.

RA: How would I best answer that question. It's not the way I like to see horses managed.

TDN: Since then, has the way in which he manages his barn improved?

RA: He actually quit using thyroxine before the report, after consulting with his own veterinarians about some of the things that were going on. I do think that they did change some management practices in the barn, but if you watch the way that Bob trains horses, he trains them very aggressively.

In fact, probably, and I've said this before, Bob Baffert really changed the way that horses are trained here. They're trained much harder than they were back 30 or 40 years ago when I started practicing. He works his horses very fast, very hard. And unfortunately, other trainers who try to emulate him don't have those million-dollar yearlings that can work 58 and change.

I think it used to be, everybody tried to emulate Charlie Whittingham, the way he trained, which was a more considered approach to training horses as compared to the Bob Baffert Quarter Horse style of training.

TDN: Do you think that change ultimately has been for the better or to the detriment of the Thoroughbred racehorse in California?

RA: I'm a big fan of Charlie Whittingham, Ron McAnally, Dick [Richard] Mandella. Those types of trainers.

Stay tuned for part two of this Q&A with Dr. Arthur.

The post Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part One appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post