phenylbutazone and, therefore, dismissed as both 1.8 and 1.9 micrograms fall below the regulatory threshold of 2 mcg/ml. Not in Florida. The DPMW Administrative Complaint sent to the trainer stated, “A split sample analysis performed on the sample by [I removed lab’s name and location] confirmed the sample contained and tested positive for an impermissible level of phenylbutazone in the animal’s race-day specimen.” When I questioned the DPMW as to why this case was not dismissed since there was reasonable doubt that the sample contained less than 2 micrograms of bute, I was told by a DPMW lawyer that the split came back over 2 mcg/ml, and even if you used that laboratory’s measurement uncertainty on the Florida Racing Laboratory’s finding, it would still be 2 mcg/ml, which is a violation. What? The trainer was fined $500 for this bute “positive.” I was involved in another interesting case involving a split sample for acepromazine. A while back, Florida had an epidemic of low-level acepromazine positives. The lab director, who was an advisor to the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC), stated in a steward’s hearing that research indicated that the threshold for this medication should be 10 ng/ml. The DPMW dismissed all positives detected below 10 ng/ml, which meant the vast majority of these were no longer considered medication violations. The Florida Racing Laboratory in-house threshold was now 10 ng/ml, which is the same threshold for this medication in the Controlled Therapeutic Medication Schedule that Florida adopted this January. Last year, another well-respected, successful trainer with a very large outfit of horses told me that the DPMW had detected two acepromazine positives in their horses’ samples, one in late June and the other in July, and both were quantitated at 13 ng/ml. The trainer was notified of both positives in a DPMW Consent Order that demanded a $2,000 fine and a 10-day license suspension. I suggested the trainer get a split sample on the June detection, which the FHBPA paid for, but not on the second one as the lab had not used measurement uncertainty on this sample, even though it was mandated by statute to do as of that July 1. The split sample came back at 8.2 plus or minus 1.4 ng/ml. I suggested to the DPMW lawyer that it seemed both positives should be dismissed, as 9.6 ng/ml was below the 10 ng/ml threshold, and the lab had not followed the statute on the July sample. Also, the trainer had been notified of both positives at the same time, so it should be considered one violation. The DPMW lawyer told me that the trainer would now only be fined $500 for each violation and that the DPMW would no longer tolerate me “playing” lawyer, as I was not one. I was not aware a law degree was necessary to inquire as to questionable findings and practices. At an RMTC meeting a few years ago, the subject of “stacking” of NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) was discussed. Stacking occurs when two or more NSAIDs such as bute and flunixin (Banamine) are detected in the same sample. The example given that day was if a horse was on bute pills that were discontinued 48 hours prior to post and the horse was then treated with Banamine 24 hours prior to post (at a later date the RMTC would extend that to 32 hours), then this horse’s sample should not exceed the Banamine threshold. However, if the sample exceeded the Banamine threshold and bute could also be detected, then it should still be considered a form of stacking. I suggested we put a sub-threshold on the bute or secondary NSAID since it could possibly be detected for weeks after the final oral administration, when it would have no pharmacological effect on the horse. This was agreed to by the RMTC, which then assigned the secondary threshold to the three legal NSAIDs. It was never discussed that exceeding two secondary NSAID thresholds but not a primary threshold would constitute a violation of any kind. But apparently the RCI suggested it would be a minor offense, and, therefore, a modest fine was possibly warranted. Not in Florida.
Currently, there are a number of cases in Florida in which two secondary thresholds have been breached but not a primary threshold. Let’s take a look at one. The RCI secondary thresholds are 3 ng/ml for Banamine and 0.3 mcg/ml for bute. One particular trainer had a sample that detected 3.37 ng/ml of Banamine and 0.567 mcg/ml of bute, neither of which exceeds the primary threshold. Most states would probably fine the trainer up to $500 for this stacking violation but not Florida. The DPMW demanded the trainer pay a $1,000 fine along with a 30-day license suspension. Twice! Yes, they wanted a $2,000 fine and a 60-day license suspension for “two” violations. Apparently in Florida, it is not possible to get a single stacking violation. If you had an actual stacking violation involving exceeding a primary threshold and one secondary threshold, just how severe would the penalty be in Florida? I have now been notified that the acepromazine trainer mentioned previously had a “stacking” violation. As explained previously, and rather poorly I might add, stacking occurs when two NSAIDs such as bute and Banamine are detected in the same sample. Stacking can occur when both detections are over the primary threshold limit or when one primary and one secondary threshold are breeched. The secondary threshold was included, so traces of an NSAID cannot be called a positive for weeks after its administration with zero-tolerance testing being employed. Again, a secondary stacking violation occurs when a blood sample contains more than 0.3 mcg/ml of bute and more than 3 ng/ml of Banamine, which can lead to a small fine. This trainer’s sample contained 0.385 mcg/ml of bute and 4.46 ng/ml of Banamine. The DPMW stated in its Consent Order that it took into consideration the “17 prior drug positive violations” before setting the penalty for this trainer. But not all were “drug positives,” as four were resolved with warning letters and four had “no action taken.” That puts the count at nine, and do you remember the two aforementioned acepromazines that should have been dismissed? So this trainer had seven violations, mostly of the Class IV variety (there was a Class III, probably clenbuterol) over a long period of time and thousands of starts. What penalty did the DPMW want for this trainer? A $2,750 fine per count (remember, while this is a single violation in the rest of America, that is not the case in Florida), so that’s a $5,500 fine and a license suspension of 60 days. Apparently the DPMW opted not to suspend this trainer for each violation and, therefore, was now considering the stacking to be “one” violation. Two violations for fines, one violation for the license suspension and a draconian, uncalled for penalty. Last year, I had a trainer tell me about a serious punishment that the DPMW was demanding for a testosterone positive on a gelding that finished out of the money and, because there was no “special” called by the stewards on this horse, it never went to the detention barn for drug testing! I must admit that I really didn’t believe the trainer at first, but after the trainer paid for a laboratory test that proved the horse was indeed a gelding with an undescended testicle, I changed my mind. The DPMW should have dismissed this case and expunged it from the trainer’s record. Months later, the DPMW released a Dismissal Order that stated, “Issues of reasonable doubt are present in this matter; the Division is unable to proceed any further in this administrative action.” Remember that this horse was never tested by the DPMW, yet the order concluded with the following, “It is ordered that this case should be and is hereby dismissed without prejudice, to reopen the case at a later time.” (Emphasis added.) In Florida, even if your horse isn’t tested after a race, you can still have a possible medication violation. They never give up! So what would happen if a financially secure trainer with a number of violations (more than 30 in five years) hired a lawyer? The lawyer hired in this case was previously general counsel for a racetrack, and whether that had any effect on the outcome of this case, I have no way of knowing. The trainer in question had positives for three acepromazines, a clenbuterol, two bute overages, a methocarbamol and a DMSO positive. For those of you keeping WWW.NATIONALHBPA.COM
21