Developments in drug testing in European racing | Trainer Magazine | European Trainer Article Index

Sep 30

Sep 30 Developments in drug testing in European racing

VETERINARY, RACING

INTERNATIONALLY, racing’s regulatory authorities take a clear and firm stance on the presence of prohibited substances in the horse at the time of racing. European “Doping control” applies the so-called “Zero Tolerance” approach for substances having no therapeutic effect that are used with the intent to affect performance. Most jurisdictions additionally practice “medication control” for legitimate veterinary medicines, and beyond this, many state racing authorities in the US allow horses to race on “permitted medications” such as phenylbutazone (“Bute”) and furosemide (“Salix”). European countries currently require that all horses race free from the direct effect of any medication, although there is a trend towards medication control based on measurement of “irrelevant” levels of veterinary medicines. Prohibited substances are often considered to be synonymous with drugs (pharmaceutical medication). However, this is not the complete picture. There are a variety of substances of differing origins that will be regarded as prohibited under the Rules of Racing including but not restricted to: q Approved equine veterinary drugs q Veterinary drugs approved for species other than horses q Human drugs q Herbal products (human and animal) q ‘Natural products’ q Dietary supplements q Pharmacologically active dietary constituents and contaminants q Endogenous substances In contrast to other sports-governing bodies such as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) (policies are under review), European racing authorities do not have a definitive list of banned drugs. They do have an essentially generic list that identifies prohibited substances according to the physiological systems upon which they act, for example “substances acting on the nervous system; substances acting on the cardiovascular system; substances acting on the musculoskeletal system”. In almost all instances, any substance (see list above) administered to a horse by any means or route, beyond normal nutrition, is prohibited where there is the intention to attempt to alter the animal’s racing performance. Indeed, the mere presence of most substances, beyond normal nutrients and natural body constituents at normal levels, at the time of racing is prohibited. (There are a small number of specific exceptions including approved wormers – anthelmintics – and some, but not all, antibiotics.) Furthermore, it has been internationally agreed that “nobody shall bring into the stables of a racecourse on a raceday either a prohibited substance or any means of administering such a substance.” There is also international agreement to recognise and specifically list a number of so-called “threshold substances” that are endogenous to the horse, ubiquitous within the environment or non-removable feed contaminants such as testosterone and hydrocortisone, arsenic, salicylic acid and theobromine, respectively. Ascribed to these substances are threshold levels for urine and/or blood, below which no regulatory action is taken. Policy relating to prohibited substances has evolved over time through organizations such as the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA), the European Horseracing Scientific Liaison Committee (EHSLC), the Association of Official Racing Chemists (AORC) and more recently the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC), although the latter operates within North America with only some international influence. The ethical stance and resultant policies adopted by IFHA in relation to prohibited substances are defined and set out in Article 6 of their International Agreement on Breeding, Racing and Wagering. IFHA’s objectives are to guide individual national regulators in protecting the integrity of racing (and the related breeding industry) and to enhance public confidence in the sport, and to protect the welfare and safety of horses and jockeys. Specifically, the aim is to maintain the integrity of racing by detecting and deterring the use of any substance that may advantage or disadvantage a horse beyond its inherent physical merits. The regulators view prohibited substances from the perspective of their ability to affect performance not only at the time of racing, but for some substances, also in training. In 1992 the major European racing authorities decided the time had come to strive for harmonisation in the technical and regulatory strategies aimed at challenging the illegitimate use of prohibited substances. They judged that to effectively tackle this issue into the future, international cooperation and collaboration in anti-doping research would be necessary, and consequently they formed the European Horseracing Scientific Liaison Committee (EHSLC) to promote, coordinate and oversee these processes. The EHSLC is now an incorporated organisation that brings together British, French, Irish, German, Italian and Scandinavian regulators and comprises various working parties with focused remits, and although the exact number fluctuates to accommodate specific contemporary issues, there remain three principal groups. The Analysts Working Party comprises representatives from the member countries’ regulatory laboratories. They propose and appraise, and seek to harmonize sampling and testing procedures. The CVO Working Party consists of the Chief Veterinary Officers from member countries whose focus is veterinary issues, particularly prioritizing drugs for study. The Combined Working Party is an amalgamation of the above groups plus additional advisory pharmacologists, and together they have several roles that include reviewing drug studies to establish detection time information for veterinarians and trainers. These groups report to racing administrators who sit together as the directions of EHSLC. However, decisions are not binding and must be adopted individually by each racing authority. The fundamental intention of the EHSLC is to “... create a common environment, to best practice standards, such that, in whichever of the member countries a horse is raced, the horse and its connections are treated in all key matters of principle, in the same way.”  The EHSLC’s formal objectives are q to harmonise technical doping control policies and procedures; q to engender co-operation between its member national horseracing regulatory authorities in research underlying the suppression of doping; q to provide a forum for the exchange of information relating to doping control; q to seek to unify the views of member national horseracing regulatory authorities on matters concerning doping control in order to advance a uniform European stance on doping control in the worldwide arena; q to act in the joint interests of the member national horseracing regulatory authorities who are members of the EHSLC Clearly, it is not the intention of the racing authorities to prevent, discourage or hinder proper veterinary care for racehorses. However, they do not want horses to race whilst undergoing treatment or too soon afterwards, when there is the likelihood of the therapeutic effects or side effects of drugs persisting and potentially influencing performance.  over the last decade, for example, the UK regulator has annually tested around 10% of all runners which has resulted in an incidence of post race positives of about 1-2 per month. However, this needs to be seen in the proper context. Whereas two in every 10,000 runners test positive for inadvertent carry-over of medication, only one in every 100,000 runners test positive for a substance that could be regarded as a doping agent. Thus, the majority result from careless use of veterinary medicines or inadvertent feed contamination, rather than deliberate doping attempts. The Rules make it clear that in-training treatments should be withdrawn in advance of racing to avoid the risk of a positive post- race test. Such withdrawal times historically have proven difficult to define and it had fallen upon the attending veterinary surgeon to provide the appropriate guidance. An eight-day withdrawal period was advised in the past, particularly for treatment with non-steroidal anti- inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ‘Bute’ and flunixin. However, this practice is becoming increasingly unreliable. New drugs are being introduced into veterinary practice which can remain in the horse’s body for longer periods, such as carprofen and eltenac (e.g. RimadylTM and TelzenacTM, respectively). When added to the increasing sophistication and sensitivity of testing techniques it can be seen that the risks of legitimate veterinary treatment causing positives remains. Consequently, there is an increased need for more detailed information on the clearance times from the horse’s system for commonly used veterinary drugs. The EHSLC in conjunction with racing laboratories, and increasingly in cooperation with other jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and South Africa, have initiated an ongoing programme of research to establish accurate detection times for commonly used veterinary medications. In this experimental process, veterinary drugs are administered by the prescribed routes at normal clinical doses to groups of horses maintained under conditions intended to mimic a real training situation as closely as possible. Urine and blood samples are subsequently collected repeatedly and the declining drug levels are monitored over time (using harmonised screening procedures according to EHSLC recommendations), until the levels of drugs and/or breakdown products are no longer detectable above an agreed international screening limit (ISL). Therefore, a Detection Time can be defined as the time elapsed between the final dose of medication and the time at which levels measured in the urine (and blood) fall below the so-called ISL. The ISL is a product of international consensus and it is used by Racing Authorities to ensure their laboratories set appropriate sensitivities for the testing methods. The purpose is to ensure not only that drugs commonly employed in veterinary treatment are used in a clinically approved manner, but also that Currently available detection times as published on websites of the EHSLC member countries. (Note this information is indicative only and information from www.ehslc.com should be used when treating horses) Drug Drug type Trade name examples Detection time / days (hours) Phenylbutazone NSAID Equipalazone 7 (168) Flunixin NSAID Finadyne 6 (144) Carprofen NSAID Rimadyl 11 (264) Ketoprofen NSAID Ketofen 4 (96) Meloxicam NSAID Metacam 3 (72) Eltenac NSAID Telzenac 8 (192) Dipyrone NSAID Vetalgin 3 (72) Vedaprofen NSAID Quadrisol 4 (96) Furosemide Diuretic Dimazon 2 (48) Mepivacaine Local anaesthetic Intra-Epicaine 2 (48) Meclofenamic acid NSAID Dynoton 5 (120h) Dembrexine Mucolytic Sputolysin 5 (120h) Detomidine Sedative Domosedan 2 (48h) Naproxen NSAID Naprosyn More than 15 days the enhanced sensitivity of today’s ‘state of the art’ testing methods do not cause ‘positives’ to be declared where drug residues are clearly below therapeutically effective levels. When setting an ISL, specific risk factors for each drug are taken into account. These include the detection time, the extent to which the drug is used in equine veterinary practice, and its potential to impact on the welfare of the horse or to affect race performance. Thereby, a drug with a high risk of abuse or significant potential to alter performance will be more strictly regulated, and vice versa. This is a fundamentally different approach to simply permitting medication or particular drugs, but still allows horse welfare and treatment needs to be considered whilst assuring the integrity of racing. This programme, which has already lasted several years, has led to the publication of Europe-wide harmonised Detection Times for a range of medications. Further research is being undertaken to extend the number of drugs for which data can be published. Established detection times are published on the EHSLC website and referenced on websites of each of the individual member racing authorities within the EHSLC. This information should be used by racing veterinarians as an aid to best advise trainers on setting ‘withdrawal times’ following treatment. It must be emphasised that detection times, as published by the EHSLC, and withdrawal times are not the same thing. A Withdrawal Time for the purposes of medication control in racehorses is a recommendation made with the professional judgement of the treating veterinarian as to how much time should be allowed to elapse between the last treatment dose and the horse’s first race. The Withdrawal Time set should be longer than the published Detection Time. The Detection Time should be taken as a starting point with a suitable time safety margin added to account the possible variability of the particular horse and the individual circumstances. This approach is essential as an individual horse may take much longer to clear medication from its system than the “average horse”. A variety of factors can unexpectedly prolong clearance of medication: q unlike the experimental horses to establish detection times, for those in need of clinical treatment the illness itself can prolong drug clearance q Age and sex of the horse q Diet q fitness (training status) and racing distance (speed) q inaccurate dosing (for medicines given orally by yard staff) q formulation of the medication q duration of treatment q dosing frequency, e.g. once per day, twice, etc. q body weight q dehydratio  Feed contamination is an issue with similar regulatory consequences but one which can be tackled by an additional strategy. Feed contamination from naturally occurring prohibited substances (NOPS) can arise, for example, from the presence of particular weeds such as Nightshades and Thorn Apple or Jimson Weed in harvested cereals, or storage and transport contamination of raw materials by coffee and cocoa by-products. The most commonly encountered contaminants encompass caffeine, theobromine, morphine, and to a lesser extent atropine, hyoscine and hordenine. Historically, racing has seen many post- race positives for theobromine (and caffeine) which led to the designation of theobromine as a threshold substance. The incidence of post-race caffeine and theobromine positives has decreased dramatically but the risk continues, albeit greatly reduced. Morphine presents a more recent and ongoing risk with post-race positives occurring each year between 2005 and 2008, with an earlier spate in 2002/2003. A new initiative involving a number of UK and Irish horsefeed manufacturers is underway to further reduce the potential for inadvertent feed contamination to cause post-race positives. This process is being developed and coordinated by the Feed Committee of the British Equine Trade Association (BETA) with input from both the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) and the National Trainers Federation (NTF), and a similar parallel process is taking place in France under the auspices of CNEF. The ultimate aim is to create a set of risk management protocols and procedures to be appended as approved guidelines to an existing legal code for feed manufacture; the United Kingdom Food Assurance scheme (UFAS). The benefits of this approach are already being noted by the British Horseracing Authority (BHA). All the valuable work done on establishing harmonised accurate detection times and changes to risk management in feed production do not create a panacea for the future absence of post-race positives, but when applied appropriately they should significantly reduce the incidence of inadvertent failures during post-race drug testing whilst continuing to allow the treatments that are required for horses during training

CLICK ON IMAGE TO READ ARTICLE

Sep 30 Train with more precision

Sep 30 Will hemp change the way we feed horses?