Kentucky to Examine Its Drug Classifications

The Kentucky Equine Drug Research Council has formed a committee to examine the 170 differences between its drug and medication classification schedule, and the recommendations of the Association of Racing Commissioners International Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances.

While some states take the approach of adopting the entire RCI classification guidelines, along with updates and changes made to that document, Kentucky uses the RCI guidelines as a foundation for its medication classification schedule. Because of that approach, inconsistencies can develop. Kentucky Horse Racing Commission Equine Medical Director Mary Scollay told the EDRC at its March 11 meeting that she found 170 differences in the two documents.

Scollay said it's important to review all of these differences to determine if the inconsistencies were an unintentional failure of Kentucky to stay in step with RCI changes or if the state, in fact, had reasons to differ from the RCI guidance.

Scollay said as the Kentucky schedule is reviewed, if the state had good reason for its difference in classification from the RCI, it would likely go to RCI and present its case in an effort to have RCI reconsider its classification.

Scollay said when medication violations are contested and Kentucky has a different classification from RCI, it can present a challenge for the state to show why it differed from the industry standard.

"It puts the burden on Kentucky to show why it classified the substance in this way," Scollay said. "It's a lot easier to say the RCI thought really hard about it, they had qualified people review it, we accept that they did good work."

Scollay said she's not sure of when the last time the Kentucky list was vetted. She said Kentucky's update of its classifications of anabolic steroids a few years ago is an example of how inconsistencies can develop.

"When we addressed anabolic steroids, we re-classified testosterone, nandrolone, boldenone, and stanozolol from C to B (in line with the RCI guidelines). What we didn't do was go through and find all of the other anabolic steroids and reclassify them," Scollay said. "So as it stands right now, you would get a more severe penalty for the four that have been recognized as having a therapeutic use as compared with the ones that have no therapeutic use and may not have FDA approval in the United States and represent designer steroids."

"We have to go through and figure out if those (other anabolic steroids) should be Class Bs. Do they have FDA approval for human use, in which case maybe B is appropriate. But if they have no FDA approval or if they're human substances of abuse, they should be Class A. It's that kind of thing."