Proposed changes to standardbred medication rules and penalties by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission have prompted a bit of a tempest in thoroughbred circles. The issue will be on the agenda Tuesday for a special meeting of the commission’s rules committee.
Dr. Brent Cassady injects furosemide, an anti-bleeding drug, into Prado Dash a few hours before racing at the backside of Churchill Downs one chilly morning in November. Photo by Matt Stone
The issue — essentially whether trainers can still be responsible for a furosemide (better known as Lasix or Salix) problem when KHRC veterinarians administer it — initially was raised in an email to commission staff from Marty Maline, the executive director of the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association that represents owners and trainers.
Maline points out that the administration of furosemide is now the responsibility of commission vets, while the penalty language relating to a furosemide violation remains non-specific as to whom could be held responsible. Maline wrote:
“While the aforementioned regulations have not changed, as you are aware, the method of administering furosemide to horses has indeed changed. Racing commission veterinarians are now responsible for administering the medication. If there is no detectable level of furosemide in the post-race sample of the horse, after the racing commission veterinarian has given the medication, how can that be a violation that may subject the trainer to a class ‘C’ violation?”
That prompted an emphatic response from commission member Tom Conway, a member the Rules Committee and a director on the Kentucky HBPA board:
“Our state employee has assumed the duty, and we are seeking to punish a trainer for the vet’s failure(?) Crazy, Crazy, Crazy.”
That (or both) prompted a response from commission member Ned Bonnie, also a member of the Rules Committee.
“Clearly, the purse cannot be taken away because of a mistake by an employee of the commission. “
That brings everyone to tomorrow’s meeting where the standardbred rules are on the agenda, but I’m betting the question will turn to the same language in the thoroughbred rules.
It would seem that the question would be whether there’s some scenario (a trainer deliberately makes a horse late for the shot?) to justify the broad language?
