CHRB Delays Any Action on Third-Party Lasix

A three-year effort to employ third-party administration of the race-day medication furosemide in California was delayed significantly at a California Horse Racing Board meeting Aug. 20 at Del Mar.

CHRB commissioners voted to send the proposal back to committee, likely delaying action on potential third-party administration of furosemide, also called Lasix or Salix, to 2016. Similar third-party measures have already been adopted in several jurisdictions, including Kentucky and New York, and third-party Lasix administration is a cornerstone of the National Uniform Medication Program.

Multiple veterinarians in attendance opposed the third-party proposal, as did California Thoroughbred Trainers representatives, citing potential mistakes by third-party vets unfamiliar with the horses they'd be attending to and calling into question the accountability of those vets if a mistake were to be made. 

"The public doesn't care about (third-party Lasix)," CTT president Jim Cassidy said. "(Public) perception is no Lasix at all. I'm not advocating for no Lasix, of course, but that's the true perception ... I asked (CHRB chairman Chuck) Winner, who is going to be responsible for a bad test? Who is going to be responsible if a horse gets injured? ... Those questions still haven't been answered ... This third-party Lasix thing, as far as the trainers are concerned, is not going to work. That's for the health and safety of the horse more than anything else."

Dr. Rick Arthur, the CHRB's equine medical director, vehemently defended the proposal and called the proceedings an embarrassment.

"This is a process that's been going on for three years," Arthur said. "Frankly, I think this is an embarrassment to California, this board, and this industry that you can't get something as simple as this implemented, as they have in other states ... This has already been before the board, you've already approved it, and it's been out (for public comment) for 45 days. Then they throw all these other issues up that gets everybody confused about what the real issues are."

Arthur repeatedly referenced the practice of third-party administration of furosemide in other jurisdictions and said vets hired to administer the medication would be "professionally liable." He also repeated the function of the proposed changes. 

"It's been implemented in Kentucky successfully. It's been implemented in New York successfully," Arthur said. "It's not that complicated. The only difference is, rather than having private veterinarians who have an interest in the outcome of the race—and let's face it, with our mega-stables, there are trainers that are $100,000 accounts for veterinarians. It's very difficult to say no (to them) ... Drugs other than Lasix are being administered to horses on race days. We know that, and this is what we're trying to prevent."

Joe Morris, president of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, also supported the proposal.

"When this started three years ago, it was a national industry movement," Morris said. "It's not a California movement ... We've made it through two of the steps (and) this is the third step ... There's 13 states in those three years that have made it through all four steps ... This system matches up to Florida, New York, Kentucky, Toronto ... Change always bothers people, but it's well thought out, it's a good program, and it matches some of the other racing states, and it's a step we need to get done as a part of the uniform medication guidelines. We've got to get all the states on the same page here ... I would hope we could get this passed so we can get onto the fourth step, so the country is unified and we can get out of the conversations with (the) federal government and (the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency)." 

The CTT and the vets who spoke expressed support for a system that would allow administration of furosemide through trainer-hired vets with oversight, but to consider that option, the CHRB had to send the proposal back to the Medication and Track Safety Committee. 

"The first alternative we proposed is to have disinterested, impartial security personnel—(CHRB officials)—to go with us and supervise the administration of Lasix, which has now been implemented successfully in Indiana," said Dr. Don Shields. 

After a 91-minute debate, the CHRB voted—by a 5-2 margin—to send the proposal back to committee. CHRB commissioner Richard Rosenberg was the most vocal member encouraging the move.

"This has not been discussed in detail by the board ... Just because it's been sent out (for public comment) for 45 days doesn't mean we approve it as written," Rosenberg said. "I absolutely think this is overkill."

Steve Beneto and Alex Solis were the only board members to vote against the motion to send the proposal back to committee.

"This is good for racing," Solis said of the third-party administration plan. "If New York has it, you're going to have guys going from New York to here ... Nothing is going to change if we don't agree to this."

Although he expressed frustration over opposition to the proposal early in the discussion, CHRB executive director Rick Baedeker eventually relented to the motion to shelve the planned new rule.

"When commissioners vote, they (should) vote with a clear understanding of what's before them," Baedeker said. "Obviously, that's not the case here."

Immediately after the furomoside discussion, the CHRB unanimously approved a proposal to establish "violation and penalty guidelines for the presence of cobalt in an official blood sample."