Four Additional Trainers Handed Provisional Suspensions By HIWU

The Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) has updated its list of trainers that have been provisionally suspended after their horses have allegedly tested positive for banned substances, and the new names are Natalia Lynch, David Reid, Javier Morzan and Mary Pirone.

Lynch, who is based in New York and had a winner Sunday at Saratoga, was sanctioned for allegedly having a horse test positive for Altrenogest. According a 2018 press release from the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC), Altrenogest is a progesterone receptor agonist used to control estrus in fillies or maintenance of pregnancy in mares. It is marketed in the United States as an oral formulation known as ReguMate. According to the National Library of Medicine's website, Altrenogest is structurally similar to the anabolic androgenic steroid, trenbolone.

The horse in question is Motion to Strike (Competitive Edge), who tested positive after finishing fourth in a $5,000 claimer at Monmouth June 24. The horse was claimed from that race by owner-trainer Silvino Ramirez. Ramirez now has the option of having the void claimed and returning the horse to Lynch.

According to Equibase, Lynch has been training since 2020 and has had 21 winners from 214 starts. She is 5-for-56 on the year.

In regards to Lynch, NYRA issued the following statement Friday: “NYRA has been alerted via HIWU that a horse under the care of trainer Natalia Lynch has tested positive for the banned substance Altrenogest. Per HISA rules, Lynch is now under a provisional suspension nationally and cannot participate in any activities at NYRA tracks. HISA/HIWU rules allow for Lynch to request a formal hearing and the analysis of a split sample. Lynch had occupied four stalls at Saratoga Race Course and 11 stalls at Belmont Park. Horses under Lynch's care are being transferred to a covered person who is not affiliated with Lynch as required by HIWU.”

Also new to the list, trainer Mary Pirone was also provisionally suspended for an Altrenogest positive. Based at Emerald Downs, Pirone has been training since 1987. She has won just two races since 2020, going 2-for-31 over that time. Pirone's Benny the Jet (Bernardini) tested positive after finishing fifth in a $2,500 claimer at Emerald Downs June 24. He was also claimed out of that race and in his next start he won for trainer Jorge Rosales and owner Dawn Spillman.

Trainer McLean Robertson, the dominant trainer at Canterbury Park, was also provisionally suspended by HIWU for Altrenogest.

Trainer Javier Morzan was provisionally suspended after his horse Lady Liv (Bal a Bali {Brz} tested positive for Metformin. Top Northern California trainer Jonathan Wong was also provisionally suspended for Metformin. Metformin is commonly used in humans to combat type 2 diabetes. While Metformin is a permitted medication by the U. S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) for humans in athletic competition, the National Institutes of Health published a study indicating it has an effect on athletic performance. In a study of 10 men, they determined that “time to exhaustion was significantly higher after Metformin than placebo ingestion,” and that “Metformin improved performance and anaerobic alactic contribution during high-intensity exercise.”

Morzan is currently racing at Delaware Park. He is 5-for-60 on the year and has won 18 total races during a career that began in 2020.

HIWU's list also includes trainer David Reid, who was provisionally suspended after a horse he trained tested positive for Venlafaxine. In humans, Venlafaxine is used to treat depression. It is also used to treat general anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and panic disorder. Reid, who  is based at Hawthorne, has a career record of 36 wins from 184 starters.

The post Four Additional Trainers Handed Provisional Suspensions By HIWU appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

RMTC Completes Analysis Of HISA Withdrawal Guidance

The Racing Medication and Testing Consortium's Scientific Advisory Committee has now completed its analysis of HISA's proposed ADMC screening limits and detection times and has developed a withdrawal guidance limited to RMTC's schedule of Controlled Therapeutic Substances. This withdrawal guidance is based on existing research and administration data. The complete withdrawal guidance, which is subject to change, can be found here.

The intention is for the RMTC to provide the industry with scientifically derived information to aid attending veterinarians and horsemen in making medication decisions and to avoid preventable errors, promote compliance with HISA's regulations, and provide all available information in advance of HISA's expected ADMC implementation date of March 27.

The post RMTC Completes Analysis Of HISA Withdrawal Guidance appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Taking Stock: Is SGF-1000 a PED?

[Editor's note: Gary and Mary West are clients of Werk Thoroughbred Consultants, of which Sid Fernando is president and CEO. WTC recommended the 2014 purchase of Maximum Security's dam, Lil Indy, for $80,000 at Keeneland January for the purpose of breeding her to New Year's Day, a stallion owned by the Wests at that time and the sire of Maximum Security.]

“Just the facts, ma'am.”

The iconic line “just the facts, ma'am” is associated with the character of Sgt. Joe Friday from the 1950s cop show “Dragnet” starring actor Jack Webb in the title role of an LAPD detective. You may be too young to remember the series, but it's likely you're aware of the phrase, because it's become a part of the lexicon. That's what happens when things get repeated over and over again.

Three years ago, when the government indicted and arrested 27 individuals (it went up to 31) in what it called a wide-ranging “doping” scheme, most of us heard about the “drug” SGF-1000 for the first time. Since then, we've heard of it over and over again. This substance was specifically associated with two high-profile trainers, Jorge Navarro and Jason Servis, who'd been under investigation and were caught on tape admitting to each other that they'd used it on most of their stock.

Servis trained Maximum Security (New Year's Day), a Gary and Mary West homebred who finished first in the $20 million Saudi Cup three years ago with Coolmore as a partner. Maximum Security has yet to be declared the winner, because the following month the government issued the indictments that named the colt as the most famous recipient of SGF-1000. After this, the Saudi regulator paused purse distribution from the race, pending the outcome of its own investigation of the government's case.

In the indictment and subsequent filings, the government referred to SGF-1000 as a “customized PED,” and that label as a performance-enhancing drug has stuck. Press coverage has repeatedly referred to it as a PED and “dope.” At this stage, “dope” and “SGF-1000” are as synonymous as “dope” and Epogen, or “dope” and customized analgesics, or “dope” and “red acid,” some of the other PEDs mentioned in the indictment.

Three months ago, in early December, Servis pled guilty to two charges: a felony count of misbranding and adulterating a generic version of unprescribed clenbuterol, and a misdemeanor count of misbranding and adulterating related to SGF-1000 use. Servis admitted to judge Mary Kay Vyskocil that Maximum Security, while under his care, had been administered SGF-1000 by a veterinarian. Because SGF-1000 is the only substance that the government has said was administered to Maximum Security, its use and chemical makeup are of importance to the Saudis as they close in on a decision.

 

Widespread Use

It's important to understand that the government's case wasn't about “dope” per se; there are no federal laws about the doping of racehorses. Instead, the government relied on felony counts related to the misbranding and adulteration of substances used in interstate commerce under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to indict and convict these individuals.

In almost all of these cases, however, the misbranded and adulterated substances were bona-fide PEDs, and the government could rightfully say that it had stopped several doping schemes. However, in the specific matter of SGF-1000, it appears the government was aware the substance wasn't a PED since at least September of 2019.

During the course of the last three years, I've read more than a thousand pages of court filings and spoken to several trainers who've admitted off the record to using SGF-1000 on some of their horses. None of them thought he was “doping” horses or doing anything illegal. Some are big names in the business, others smaller trainers.

One told me he had three horses shipped to him in Florida from a facility in New York with three bottles of SGF-1000 for his vet to administer. “Their vet prescribed it. I don't know if it helped,” this trainer said. “It was hard to tell, but the show horse people in Wellington seemed to feel it helped horses recover from work. I was told it was popular with them.”

I asked him if he'd speak on the record. “No, I'd get crucified in this environment we're in now with the Feds and drugs and HISA,” he said. “But SGF-1000 has been around for a while.”

As far back as 2014, Medivet, the company that sold SGF-1000, was openly advertising the product in print trades, radio racing shows, and online, and a rep for the company posted this on Facebook on Nov. 24, 2014: “To all my Facebook friends who are involved with horses: I want to share with you two great products that are drug free and chemical free that will maximize the health and wellness of your performance horse.” This was an overture to the dressage and eventing crowd in Wellington. One of the products he described was SGF-1000, of which he said, “USEF [US Equestrian Federation] approved for competition.” I don't know if this was true or not about USEF, but Medivet and its reps were openly hawking the substance in broad daylight, not peddling it conspiratorially under the cover of darkness.

“There was nothing nefarious about it,” said another, bigger New York-based trainer, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity and admitted that a multiple Grade l winner of his now at stud in Kentucky was once on it. “Dr. [Kristian] Rhein–he had a big practice in New York–dispensed it as something that was great for recovery and wellbeing. He was a good vet, especially on soundness. He'd trot a horse up and back and tell you right away where a problem was. I didn't think anything of it, and I think it did help my horse recover after works or races. A vet always prescribed and administered it. You know, Dr. Rhein had a lot of clients, and everyone knew everyone else was using it until they put it out on that overnight in September that no one was permitted to use it. When that came out, I got scared, and I never used it again after that. No one told us it was illegal before.”

In September of 2019, NYRA, at the direction of the New York Gaming Commission, put a note on the bottom of its daily overnights saying the use of SGF-1000 was prohibited. Perhaps the FBI alerted the commission and NYRA that SGF-1000 use on its grounds was widespread. By this time, the FBI already had Dr. Rhein, one of the co-owners of Medivet, boasting on tape that he'd sold “assloads” of the substance, and we've subsequently learned from court filings that Medivet was making “millions” from the sale of it. All of this makes it obvious that SGF-1000 was being used by more than just Navarro and Servis.

On Aug. 3, 2021, Dr. Rhein pled guilty in federal court to a felony charge of drug misbranding and adulteration. The government has a list of Dr. Rhein's clients who purchased and used SGF-1000 and is aware that some of these trainers had horses for well-known owners, some of whom belong to elite industry organizations. From court filings, the government also is aware of the labs that made the SGF-1000 – “unregistered facilities,” according to the Department of Justice, in California and Australia. These labs shipped SGF-1000 to Medivet's facility in Kentucky for packaging. The government's case that SGF-1000 was misbranded is convincing.

 

Just the Facts, Ma'am

As far as SGF-1000 is concerned, however, it appears that government prosecutors, who repeatedly called it a PED in court filings and press releases, may not have been correct. In a court filing that noted an FBI application to search emails of one of the owners of Medivet, an FBI agent wrote this in part about SGF-1000: “I have further learned that the Hong Kong Lab did not detect the presence of any growth factors or growth hormones in the sample that was analyzed, but did detect the presence of sheep amino acids.”

A person with direct knowledge who is not authorized to comment on the matter told me FBI investigators don't believe SGF-1000 was a PED, unlike other substances that were named in the indictments.

According to court filings, New Jersey regulators and a confidential source working with the FBI took blood samples from Maximum Security after he was administered SGF-1000 in early June of 2019. The confidential source dispatched the samples to the Hong Kong Jockey Club lab, and the testing came back negative for PEDs. During this time frame the HKJC responded with this email note – obtained from court filings – to the confidential source: “We had analysed (sic) the content of the SGF 1000 from Medivet some years ago. It is listed to contain a combination of growth factors, peptides, proteins, and signal molecules obtained from ovine placental extract. No detectable amount of growth factors was found but collagens common to ovine or bovine origin were detected.”

SGF-1000 originated in Australia and since 2014 has been tested by a number of other reputable organizations with no relationship to Medivet, including the Racing Medication & Testing Consortium (RMTC), Australian authorities in 2015, and UC Davis Maddy Laboratory, and not once in these tests has it been positive as a PED, according to court filings. Each time, however, it tested for sheep collagen, which is widely used in the manufacture of facial creams and other human skin-care products.

 

Government Test

According to court filings, government agents had obtained a bottle of SGF-1000 by July of 2019 and “sent the substance to a laboratory in Hong Kong for testing to determine the precise chemical contents of that substance.”

The thinking here seemed to be that SGF-1000 didn't test in Maximum Security's blood, but it would from the actual sample straight out of the bottle.

The results of that test have never been publicly revealed. If SGF-1000 did contain PEDs, wouldn't the government have publicized it? If it didn't test positive, the government wouldn't be under any obligation to share the results, because the charges of misbranding and adulterating have nothing to do with whether a substance is a PED or not.

Tellingly, after Servis pled guilty to the misbranding charge for SGF-1000, the DOJ press release did not use the words “performance-enhancing drug” or “PED” in reference to SGF-1000 – an about-face from before; instead, the government noted that Servis was guilty of having SGF-1000 administered to horses after NY regulators said the substance was illegal to use in Sept. of 2019. The federal misdemeanor charge was essentially for a state regulatory violation.

The government had a chance to reveal the results of its 2019 test but never did.

The government had access to the “unregistered” labs that manufactured SGF-1000 and could have readily exposed the ingredients that went into the formulation of the substance, but it never did.

Based on the standing facts, SGF-1000 was a misbranded substance, but it was not a PED.

And by the way, the exact line “Just the facts, ma'am” was never uttered by Sgt. Joe Friday, either. It's an urban legend. That's what happens when something gets repeated over and over again.

Sid Fernando is president and CEO of Werk Thoroughbred Consultants, Inc., originator of the Werk Nick Rating and eNicks.

The post Taking Stock: Is SGF-1000 a PED? 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

Verified by MonsterInsights