My post about medicating horses has raised a fair bit of feedback (The original post can be accessed at the following URL).

One of the letters I received was from John Messara, Arrowfield Stud Principal and Chairman of AUSHORSE. John has kindly allowed me to print his correspondence in full (see below).

If you wish to add your thoughts to the debate please feel free to do so by sending an email to info@AthloneAssociates.com. I am happy to post your comments on an anonymous basis - although if John Messara is willing to stand behind what he says in a public forum - then others should as well.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Katrina

A piece in your latest publication has prompted me to drop you a note about medication and racehorses.

As I see it, the medication rules in Australia should be framed to serve the stakeholders. So, we should look for them to give us:

(1) a high standard of welfare for the horse and of safety for the jockey,

(2) a level playing field for race participants with the consequential benefits for betting and therefore industry revenues, and

(3) the ability for racehorse owners to optimise returns on their substantial investment and running costs while protecting the integrity of racing.

I believe that while objectives (1) and (2) above are possibly being pursued in Australia, objective (3) has been well nigh neglected by racing administrators due to the current environment, where the very use of the word “medication” conjures the perception of criminal behaviour. I believe this is simply because racing administrators lack leadership on the matter and seem to have passed on all responsibilities for policy making in this area to stipendiary stewards and analysts.

In fact, the Rules of Racing do not provide a clear policy statement outlining the aims and objectives of drug-testing. The Rules simply define prohibited substances and indicate how a breach of the Rules will be handled.

Why, for example, should we not be able to administer a “normalising” drug to a racehorse at any time? Why would not such a policy be good for racing and good for ownership. Currently, for example, a puncture wound in a racehorse within 2 or 3 weeks of racing cannot be treated with the cheapest and most effective medication - procaine penicillin and gentamycin; Why - because of the ability of analysts to detect the procaine within 21 days of administration, often forcing owners to scratch their horse from a race for which he has been prepared, perhaps for months? Yet procaine (a local anaesthetic) would have zero impact on the horse’s performance.

If the labs can learn ways to detect procaine within 60 days of administration, will this mean that the horses will not be able to race for such a period? Can someone please explain the logic behind these rules. Are they just driven by developments in chemical analysis! Who cares how long it takes to detect, if procaine has no impact on the horse’s performance. Surely, it is illogical for the “detection level” to automatically become the “reporting level” except in the case of illicit substances. We must have reasonable tolerances for all drugs, to avoid punishing connections for inconsequential readings.

I am not speaking here of allowing trainers to administer go-fasts or go-slows; I am speaking of living in the real world where mishaps occur with horses all the time which need treatment, at no cost to the integrity of racing but such that minimum interruption occurs to a horse’s racing program. After all, therapeutic, or normalising, drugs do not affect the way a horse performs but merely ensure that he performs at his optimum in a race. For god’s sake, let’s take a commonsense approach and give owners a chance. We are worried about field sizes, and yet we do everything to disqualify horses from racing.

I am all for level playing fields and clean racing, but it seems to me that in the medication issue we have forgotten the owner’s and horse’s interests – yet they are the ones who actually put on the show!

I note your argument about US racing and bleeders perpetuating a weakness in the breed. The fact is that it has now been proven that approximately 70% of horses bleed within their respiratory tracts during/after strenuous exercise (“Equine Sports Medicine”, 2004). What Lasix can do is assist this syndrome not to characterise itself in sub-standard athletic performance - again, I ask what’s wrong with this from an owner’s perspective if, like America, it is fully transparent and declared at acceptance time.

So there – I now have all this off my chest.

Keep up the good work.

John Messara

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John sent a follow up email to my response (see below) "Thanks for your note, but I do think that we are somewhat at cross purposes. My point is that we have to reduce the attrition rate or risk our industry becoming the domain of only the very rich. I maintain that we can do this by allowing only therapeutics or "normalizing" drugs. Let us have the courage to be positive and allow our administrators to use their discretion. It need not be a slippery slope or a US model - all I am seeking is a common sense approach."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++