Dear John

Debating drug use in sport is a bit like debating religion or politics I suspect, but for the record here are my views on the subject:

I hold true to the belief that it should be 'all in' or 'all out'. As soon as we start defining distinctions between what is - or what is not - acceptable then the door is open to potential abuse; the 'Slippery Slope' argument if you will. A case in point (similar to your procaine eg. - but at the other end of the scale) are anabolic steroids. Contrary to popular belief steroids don't make an athlete run faster - what they do is allow he/she to train much harder. But should the fact that they don't actually enhance race day performance mean an athlete should be able to use them? Of course not. The 'stakeholders' in professional sport have ably demonstrated over the years how easily the health of an athlete can be subsumed to the requirements of sponsors, the countries fielding the athletes, and indeed the coach. I therefore think the Olympics model has a lot to be said for it.

I fail to see how American racing is the pinnacle to which we should aspire. Where is the evidence that Lasix has improved the size of race fields or the overall quality of the horse in the US?

I accept your argument that race rules in a number of jurisdictions have science rather that the voice of the stakeholder overseeing the rule books. Ultimately we rely on science, accepting that that too can change as greater knowledge is acquired. So yes, in that situation we are always at the mercy (for want of a better word) of scientific developments. What happens when drug labs can test substances 60 days out? Using your influence you will perhaps have to champion a debate on the subject with the various racing bodies and see what rules evolve as I agree with you - if we run the 'all out' argument to its logical conclusion then a lab could potentially allow no horses onto a track because the horse had a course of antibiotics when it was a foal! One assumes logic will have some role at that point as regards number of days pre-race that a horse needs to have no drugs in its system.

Australia does appear to have a history of following the US lead - albeit some years later - we have seen this in business and also in legal developments. I seriously hope we don't pursue their racing model in terms of medication however. I don't want to see the day where horses are on bute to disguise shin soreness or other issues, or are racing within a week of having penicillin, or Lasix is the 'standard'. For what good? For the jockeys, the horses - and ultimately for the owners and trainers John - this is hardly something I see as raising the bar in the sport. There are enough 'grey areas' already - as you would expect when there is as much money floating around as there is.

I am the first to say that standards - like laws - should be regularly revisited, debated - and changed if there is a compelling case to do so. That's the nature of democracy. I just fail to see how in this case there is any evidence to support the fact that the Australian racing industry should be waving the US flag.

With best wishes
Katrina