Contolled use of Therapeutic Drugs

The current situation with the use of "therapeutic drugs" has been well and truly brought to the surface by the "Smoken Up ID 2011 drama" I don't know where everyone sits on this issue and believe it would be a good thing for people to air their opinions and ideas about.

I certainly don't have a "silver bullet" answer to the improving their controlled use but I do think any policy should be designed around each particular drug rather than any blanket, one size fits all method that will in some cases, make life harder for the connections of the horse than necessary.

Certainly a review of current threshold levels and withholding periods, as has already been suggested, would assist in avoiding small issues escalating.

What are your thoughts?

Anyway, Cessnock trials won't run themselves, so Ive gotta head off over there and do my bit.

Cheers,

Dan

So Dan, ultimately we have arrived at EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION? Fair dinkum.
Onwards & upwards however. I'll try and upload the document I mentioned yesterday.
It's pretty big, maybe it'll go up, maybe not. I'll let you know.
If it does, have a look. It's right on the button.

Dan, I can't work out how to do it so I've sent it to Jules to upload. Maybe he can get it to work.

I could have done it for you in 5 minutes its 2nd grade stuff:p

http://www.harness.org.au/rules/PRHBSUBS.HTM

Just reading this at the moment.


"therapeutic drugs" is a tough topic, but to have for example BUTE given on race day by the attending vet and the vet decide if the horse is fit
to race prior would be a start IMO.
If levels are set for the amount of certain drugs that can be in the system of a horse then there is no problem, If your horse is
over the limit suck eggs, as I read it the trainer is responsable, again suck eggs, hah trainers are mostly desperado's and will tend to
push the limit on withholding periods,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starship Captain

http://www.harness.org.au/rules/PRHBSUBS.HTM

Just reading this at the moment.


"therapeutic drugs" is a tough topic, but to have for example BUTE given on race day by the attending vet and the vet decide if the horse is fit
to race prior would be a start IMO.
If levels are set for the amount of certain drugs that can be in the system of a horse then there is no problem, If your horse is
over the limit suck eggs, as I read it the trainer is responsable, again suck eggs, hah trainers are mostly desperado's and will tend to
push the limit on withholding periods,

---

Yes SC therapeutic drugs is a tough topic, we have had some very different points of view around the difference between therapeutic and performance enhancing and it is my hope we don't again go down that road as, to be honest, the differences were more a matter of opinion than anything else.

When racing horses on certain therapeutic drugs the horse's overall welfare needs to be taken into consideration. IMO it's not the same as a footballer playing on pain killers, as the footy player makes an informed choice for himself, the horse does not get that opportunity.

The consistency of the racing product needs to also be carefully managed, if a horse is say, a bleeder and is racing on lasix then of course everytime it goes around the drug needs to be administered in a consistent fashion. How that is managed is yet another aspect for debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ringman

I could have done it for you in 5 minutes its 2nd grade stuff:p

---

[VVV] No doubt work that you're recently very familiar with Ringman.
Any ideas who'll be your Year 3 Teacher? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starship Captain

http://www.harness.org.au/rules/PRHBSUBS.HTM

Just reading this at the moment.


"therapeutic drugs" is a tough topic, but to have for example BUTE given on race day by the attending vet and the vet decide if the horse is fit
to race prior would be a start IMO.
If levels are set for the amount of certain drugs that can be in the system of a horse then there is no problem, If your horse is
over the limit suck eggs, as I read it the trainer is responsable, again suck eggs, hah trainers are mostly desperado's and will tend to
push the limit on withholding periods,

---

[VVV] To my knowledge nobody's suggesting Bute on race day SC. Lasix, yes...Bute, no.
Rather, what those in favour of a re-think are suggesting are a series of thresholds for Bute etc. , below which a pre or post race swab is deemed to be clear.
Exactly the same approach as a TC02 test. Everyone knows the number, everyone knows what's required of them.
The document I asked Jules to upload lists a whole swag of thresholds & withdrawal times and from memory the closest to race time that Oral Bute can be given in any jurisdiction in the US or CAN is 48hrs and that was in California. IV Bute can go as close as 24hrs in New Jersey, Oral is 48hrs. Various others are as far out as 96hrs (Canada).
There in itself is a discrepancy because the ORC is as tight a jurisdiction as you'll see re: treatments and they're operating on 96hrs. The problem here in Oz is that the test we have in place to detect prior use of old mate phenylbutazone picks it up well beyond 96hrs. You really have to ask yourself why Oz Trainers should be under an even harsher anti-therapeutic drug testing regime than that overseen by the ORC. 96 hrs is 4 days. The test being used here in Oz will pick it up out to 7 days post. Nice. It stopped working after 12hrs but as a Trainer as far out as 156hrs beyond that you're still rooted and burned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

[VVV] To my knowledge nobody's suggesting Bute on race day SC. Lasix, yes...Bute, no.
Rather, what those in favour of a re-think are suggesting are a series of thresholds for Bute etc. , below which a pre or post race swab is deemed to be clear.
Exactly the same approach as a TC02 test. Everyone knows the number, everyone knows what's required of them.
The document I asked Jules to upload lists a whole swag of thresholds & withdrawal times and from memory the closest to race time that Oral Bute can be given in any jurisdiction in the US or CAN is 48hrs and that was in California. IV Bute can go as close as 24hrs in New Jersey, Oral is 48hrs. Various others are as far out as 96hrs (Canada).
There in itself is a discrepancy because the ORC is as tight a jurisdiction as you'll see re: treatments and they're operating on 96hrs. The problem here in Oz is that the test we have in place to detect prior use of old mate phenylbutazone picks it up well beyond 96hrs. You really have to ask yourself why Oz Trainers should be under an even harsher anti-therapeutic drug testing regime than that overseen by the ORC. 96 hrs is 4 days. The test being used here in Oz will pick it up out to 7 days post. Nice. It stopped working after 12hrs but as a Trainer as far out as 156hrs beyond that you're still rooted and burned.

---

personal experience re: bute, 48 hours from oral administration would have the horse well and truly over any significant effect, the key is proving it/reasonable detectable threshold levels given the individual horses' metabolism, to me that is the key factor with many therapeutic drugs... prove it has been administered (and it's affect on the individual horse) is in a consistent fashion and we get a level type playing field.

While ever there is the opportunity for the arguement, "but I just slipped up a little bit!!" we are left with the cheats pushing the boundaries and, unfortunately, other participants feeling like they've been ripped off!

As we all know the TC02 levels Jamie referred to are being constantly experimented with by some camps... look at all the "inconsistent" form when we had to go to 2 hour on course arrivals, as well as a spike in TC02 infringements.

That alone identifies people who are pushing the boundaries, not for the welfare of the horse they have in their care or for the benefit of producing a consistent racing product , but more for their own benefit.

The very people I despise, those who put there own interests in front of the game.

Danno, some one did post a comparison to there football playing and that they take pain killers. I did not reply to it, as I could not:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starship Captain

Danno, some one did post a comparison to there football playing and that they take pain killers. I did not reply to it, as I could not:)

---

Thanks SC, sure if they want to get their message across they'll come back with it..

Cheers,

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

personal experience re: bute, 48 hours from oral administration would have the horse well and truly over any significant effect, the key is proving it/reasonable detectable threshold levels given the individual horses' metabolism, to me that is the key factor with many therapeutic drugs... prove it has been administered (and it's affect on the individual horse) is in a consistent fashion and we get a level type playing field.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

While ever there is the opportunity for the arguement, "but I just slipped up a little bit!!" we are left with the cheats pushing the boundaries and, unfortunately, other participants feeling like they've been ripped off!


As we all know the TC02 levels Jamie referred to are being constantly experimented with by some camps... look at all the "inconsistent" form when we had to go to 2 hour on course arrivals, as well as a spike in TC02 infringements.

That alone identifies people who are pushing the boundaries, not for the welfare of the horse they have in their care or for the benefit of producing a consistent racing product , but more for their own benefit.

The very people I despise, those who put there own interests in front of the game.

---

Totally agree with this. A small minority of trainers, either through negligence or cheating are getting pinged. So are we are expected to move the goal posts to suit these trainers? I'm tipping if thresholds etc are changed, the same trainers will push the boundaries again. But to get back on the fence again, our breed of standardbred is getting faster, but more fragile. I.e more injury prone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild

Totally agree with this. A small minority of trainers, either through negligence or cheating are getting pinged. So are we are expected to move the goal posts to suit these trainers? I'm tipping if thresholds etc are changed, the same trainers will push the boundaries again. But to get back on the fence again, our breed of standardbred is getting faster, but more fragile. I.e more injury prone.

---

[VVV] Bute stops physically (pharmacologically) working/having the initially desired effect after about 12hrs & is no risk gone for all money by 24hrs...BUT it can still be picked up in a swab well beyond 96hrs...up to as far out as a further 156 post administration & well and truly ast the time when its anti-inflamatory effects have worn off...and that's fair is it?

More often than not trainers will get picked up for a bee's dick amount of the drug and its associated metabolite...an amount who's presence does not amount to a knob of goat shit as far as any anti-inflamatory effetc is concerned...and for mine that's not negligence nor is it cheating on their part...rather, it's just plain absurd.
Bute positives are more often than not recorded by honest trainers who are just trying to keep their horses well enough to race consistently. Nothing more, nothing less.

Placing then publishing a threshold for Bute is not as you've suggested 'moving the goal posts to suit a small number of trainers'. It is instead putting a very definite figure out there for the benefit of all concerned, big and small, pro and amatuer, & one that beyond which you face the consequences, below which you are free to go.
Publishing a threshold (ala TC02's) is simply placing a maximum figure on the presence of phenylbutazone/oxyphenylbutazone in a swab...where currently and VERY notably, there isn't one...and that absence of any figure Leigh, that is an absolute bloody disgrace.

The sensitivity of the Bute test and other such tests is so great that they are simply unrealistic in terms of the actual effect a given drug is having in respect to the amount that is able to be detected.
Similarly, the test for Opiates is so sensitive that you can give your horse a shot of Penicillin and go for a row many days later by way of the test picking up the metabolites of the Procaine that's included in the injection as a local anasthetic. LUDICROUS.

Something else that's worth thinking about...testing for Bute, TC02's ect is a pretty simple exercise & so it is a relatively 'cheap' and so 'highly visible' form of enforcement.
It serves the purposes of many in administration throughout Australia & NZ to hang their hats on such testing as far as them being officially charged with producing a level playing field for participants is concerned...when, in the big scheme of things, Bute & TC02 positives are seriously small potatoes.
Whilever we continue to bog ourselves down in discussions over aspects such as these, ones which by rights should have been well & truly put to bed years ago, there are many bigger issues that continue to go unaddressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

[VVV] Bute stops physically (pharmacologically) working/having the initially desired effect after about 12hrs & is no risk gone for all money by 24hrs...BUT it can still be picked up in a swab well beyond 96hrs...up to as far out as a further 156 post administration & well and truly ast the time when its anti-inflamatory effects have worn off...and that's fair is it?

More often than not trainers will get picked up for a bee's dick amount of the drug and its associated metabolite...an amount who's presence does not amount to a knob of goat shit as far as any anti-inflamatory effetc is concerned...and for mine that's not negligence nor is it cheating on their part...rather, it's just plain absurd.
Bute positives are more often than not recorded by honest trainers who are just trying to keep their horses well enough to race consistently. Nothing more, nothing less.

Placing then publishing a threshold for Bute is not as you've suggested 'moving the goal posts to suit a small number of trainers'. It is instead putting a very definite figure out there for the benefit of all concerned, big and small, pro and amatuer, & one that beyond which you face the consequences, below which you are free to go.
Publishing a threshold (ala TC02's) is simply placing a maximum figure on the presence of phenylbutazone/oxyphenylbutazone in a swab...where currently and VERY notably, there isn't one...and that absence of any figure Leigh, that is an absolute bloody disgrace.

The sensitivity of the Bute test and other such tests is so great that they are simply unrealistic in terms of the actual effect a given drug is having in respect to the amount that is able to be detected.
Similarly, the test for Opiates is so sensitive that you can give your horse a shot of Penicillin and go for a row many days later by way of the test picking up the metabolites of the Procaine that's included in the injection as a local anasthetic. LUDICROUS.

Something else that's worth thinking about...testing for Bute, TC02's ect is a pretty simple exercise & so it is a relatively 'cheap' and so 'highly visible' form of enforcement.
It serves the purposes of many in administration throughout Australia & NZ to hang their hats on such testing as far as them being officially charged with producing a level playing field for participants is concerned...when, in the big scheme of things, Bute & TC02 positives are seriously small potatoes.
Whilever we continue to bog ourselves down in discussions over aspects such as these, ones which by rights should have been well & truly put to bed years ago, there are many bigger issues that continue to go unaddressed.

---

I thought the onus was on the trainer to present a horse at the race drug or substance free? Surely an honest or dilligent trainer would take the appropriate measures to ensure this. Not take an uneccesary risk at getting picked up in a swab when they know theyv'e administered whatever to their horse so many days previous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild

I thought the onus was on the trainer to present a horse at the race drug or substance free? Surely an honest or dilligent trainer would take the appropriate measures to ensure this. Not take an uneccesary risk at getting picked up in a swab when they know theyv'e administered whatever to their horse so many days previous.

---

[VVV] ?????????? I fear that I am wasting my time here Leigh.
Did you not read/comprehend anything whatsoever in my previous post to this thread?
This is not a matter of honesty or diligence.
We have tests on hand that are so sensitive that they pick up non active trace amounts of various substances and/or their metabolites....and trainers duly get slammed for same despite the fact that the levels are such that the horse is receiving absolutely no physical benefit from the substance whatsoever.
If you or anyone else can mount a convincing case for that situation being anywhere near fair then please, fire away.

[QUOTE=triplev123;14913][VVV] Bute stops physically (pharmacologically) working/having the initially desired effect after about 12hrs & is no risk gone for all money by 24hrs...BUT it can still be picked up in a swab well beyond 96hrs...up to as far out as a further 156 post administration & well and truly ast the time when its anti-inflamatory effects have worn off...and that's fair is it?

Placing then publishing a threshold for Bute is not as you've suggested 'moving the goal posts to suit a small number of trainers'. It is instead putting a very definite figure out there for the benefit of all concerned, big and small, pro and amatuer, & one that beyond which you face the consequences, below which you are free to go.
Publishing a threshold (ala TC02's) is simply placing a maximum figure on the presence of phenylbutazone/oxyphenylbutazone in a swab...where currently and VERY notably, there isn't one...

Much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with triple on the BUTE issue, some sort of work needs to be done so honest trainers can treat their horses during the week for minor problems ( eg touch of colic) and not get positives 3 or 4 days later.
there is no doubt in my mind that the anti inflammatory and pain relief benefit of bute is well and truly ZERO after 48 hours, so to me, a level permitted at around that, found in the average horse 48 hours after last being treated sounds like something to at least consider as not being in the interests of foul play.

The current TC02 level is IMO something else altogether, there are of few camps regularly treading a fine line here.

Which brings another related issue to mind, the rules say "no drenching within 48 hours pre race" and personaly I reckon thats a fair thing. If you had a horse which was that crook it needed drenching 48 hours pre-competion, then it shouldn't be going around, but we have one trainer in particular in our area, who takes quite a few to the races each meeting and every single one of them ( no I don't mean most of them) are standing around in their own piss after they've raced..... every single time!

like I said I'm all for trainers being able to look after their stock between races, but you have to be vigilant of the cheats, they are chasing too many honest people ( punters and participants alike) away from our game, someone said the word evaporating the other day and unfortunately that's a pretty fair summation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

[VVV] ?????????? I fear that I am wasting my time here Leigh.
Did you not read/comprehend anything whatsoever in my previous post to this thread?
This is not a matter of honesty or diligence.
We have tests on hand that are so sensitive that they pick up non active trace amounts of various substances and/or their metabolites....and trainers duly get slammed for same despite the fact that the levels are such that the horse is receiving absolutely no physical benefit from the substance whatsoever.
If you or anyone else can mount a convincing case for that situation being anywhere near fair then please, fire away.

---

First of all you can get off your high horse. So you're saying it is the over sensitive testing we have that is to blame. Not a small amount of trainers brave enough to risk a positive when they treat a horse, too close to a race? I hear what your saying about levels having no physical benefit. But it was at some stage. And its in the trainers interest for it to be out of the horses system. Correct? I was brought up to follow the rules, and expect everyone else to do likewise. And until rules change, anyone who flout them, I say stiff shit! I'd like to know what % of these hard done by trainers have been rubbed out.

No, I'm not saying that. I know it is not an overly sensitive test Leigh...rather all that it is currently required to do is to indicate a simple presence or absence thereof.
I'm certain the testing labs could quantify the amount present but they're not being asked by the regulators to do so, they're merely being asked to tick yes or no...and so goes the fortunes of the trainer concerned.
There is currently no threshold in place for Bute...and to add insult to injury, under those current rules it is my understanding that the test does not need to report the amount present.
If it is found to be there, in any amount at all, anything whatsoever, then it will be deemed a positive...be it a Kilogram or be it a nanogram. THAT is the point I am trying to make.

It is, IMO, an unrealistic, unfair test & I think it's reasonable to suggest that there must be dozens of other tests out there that are in the same boat...i.e. tests that are calling positives on trainers solely due to trace amounts beng present, amounts that could in no reasonable way, shape or form be termed pharmacologically active.

Back to Bute, as it is without doubt the Poster Child for this debate, it is terribly unfair to think that a horse who races on a Saturday night, gets a few bumps & bruises and is duly given a dose of Bute when he gets home that night...could still score his trainer a positive the following Saturday night....despite the effects of the drug in question having well and truly worn off by around lunchtime the previous Sunday.

Don't forget, thresholds work both ways...not only do they prevent honest trainers from falling foul of a yes or no type Draconian style interpretation of the rule, they also serve to zero in on a trainer who, by a quantifying of the amount detected, has intentionally given the drug too close to race day & has pressed on, regardless. You seem to think it is all one way traffic. It is not.

Heres another, completely different angle that came via another thread today....

what do people think of this approach to ensuring a level playing field?

I know one thing for sure! The disqualification period would stop a few people leaving the game due to disillusionment.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horse...-testing_N.htm

Good idea but it seems to me that Kentucky was behind the times, even there.
That approach was already in place in numerous other places Dan, including here in Oz.
It's sometimes referred to as 'out of competition' testing & there is to my knowledge nothing stopping Stewards ordering any test on any horse and at any time, for anything.
Making any resultant charges stick...as far as establishing intent is concerned however, that's another matter altogether.
If for example Stewards tested out of competition horses & they found mircera or aranesp or whatever, drugs that obviously have no business being in a horse, then I'm sure they'd be able to jam them six ways from Sunday.
If an out of competition horse came up with a Bute or an Opiate positive then they'd be on very shakey ground on the basis of it not having been presented to race.
They wouldn't put themselves in that position however, they are smarter than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

Good idea but it seems to me that Kentucky was behind the times, even there.
That approach was already in place in numerous other places Dan, including here in Oz.
It's sometimes referred to as 'out of competition' testing & there is to my knowledge nothing stopping Stewards ordering any test on any horse and at any time, for anything.
Making any resultant charges stick...in terms of establishing intent is concerned however, that's another matter altogether.
If for example Stewards tested out of competition horses & they found micera or aranesp or whatever, drugs that obviously have no business being in a horse, then I'm sure they'd be able to jam them six ways from Sunday.
If an out of competition horse came up with a Bute or Opiate positive then they'd be on very shakey ground on the basis of it not having been presented to race.
They wouldn't put themselves in that position however, they are smarter than that.

---

I thought the key to the article Jamie, was that in fact, it was legislation not just the rules of the relevant racing authority.
That's how the charges "stick"

The article did not also mention which drugs they were legislating against.

Therefore, what's to say, in our own backyard, the legislation could be designed in a way that took into account that some therapeutic drugs did not come within the scope of the law?

The main things that I took from the action in Kentucky, is that it's the law of the land, can be actioned at any time, could be VERY transparent and the consequences of cheating can be life changing for anyone involved.

I'm not saying this is the be all and end all, just that there are some aspects that are worth considering if you want a system that eveyone understands and knows what is right within the law and what is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

[VVV] ?????????? I fear that I am wasting my time here Leigh.
Did you not read/comprehend anything whatsoever in my previous post to this thread?
This is not a matter of honesty or diligence.
We have tests on hand that are so sensitive that they pick up non active trace amounts of various substances and/or their metabolites....and trainers duly get slammed for same despite the fact that the levels are such that the horse is receiving absolutely no physical benefit from the substance whatsoever.
If you or anyone else can mount a convincing case for that situation being anywhere near fair then please, fire away.

---

Do you have a science degree? because you appear to want everyone on here to think you know about lab procedures. so what is the procedure in a lab when a specimen arrives and what process will it go through to obtain a result :o.

If that is too hard..... then what are the first 2 things that happen to the speci when it arrives at the lab:o

now if thats too hard then you are full of crap and have never been in a lab in your life:p

over to you Einstein:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I thought the key to the article Jamie, was that in fact, it was legislation not just the rules of the relevant racing authority.
That's how the charges "stick"

The article did not also mention which drugs they were legislating against.

Therefore, what's to say, in our own backyard, the legislation could be designed in a way that took into account that some therapeutic drugs did not come within the scope of the law?

The main things that I took from the action in Kentucky, is that it's the law of the land, can be actioned at any time, could be VERY transparent and the consequences of cheating can be life changing for anyone involved.

I'm not saying this is the be all and end all, just that there are some aspects that are worth considering if you want a system that eveyone understands and knows what is right within the law and what is not.

---

Extreamly well written Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

I thought the key to the article Jamie, was that in fact, it was legislation not just the rules of the relevant racing authority.
That's how the charges "stick"

The article did not also mention which drugs they were legislating against.

Therefore, what's to say, in our own backyard, the legislation could be designed in a way that took into account that some therapeutic drugs did not come within the scope of the law?

The main things that I took from the action in Kentucky, is that it's the law of the land, can be actioned at any time, could be VERY transparent and the consequences of cheating can be life changing for anyone involved.

I'm not saying this is the be all and end all, just that there are some aspects that are worth considering if you want a system that eveyone understands and knows what is right within the law and what is not.

---

[VVV] G'day Dan.
Legislation is all well and good and it would be wonderful if serious drugs in racing transgressions were, as a matter of course, dealt with not only by Industry Regulatory but also by Law, however find us a parliamentary side, on the Left or Right, that has the requisite Cajones to see it through.
I understand something like that is in place in France. Dope a horse up there and you run a serious risk of doing jail time. They're perhaps a bit too far the other way but it's a start.

Im not sure if found guilty of doping a horse is that far short of fraud.Fraud is a jailable offence, it would sure get rid of cheaters.The much more realistic way of doing it would be to ensure if found guilty and appeals exhausted they are banned for minium 5 years first offence then life if re offends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

So Dan, ultimately we have arrived at EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION? Fair dinkum.
Onwards & upwards however. I'll try and upload the document I mentioned yesterday.
It's pretty big, maybe it'll go up, maybe not. I'll let you know.
If it does, have a look. It's right on the button.

---

Heard you were feeling a little relaxed.....ha ha.
Did you hear anything back from Jules about this doc?

Yeh I did Dan, he very kindly gave me a link to post it to...just that I haven't done it yet (slack arse). I'll take a shot and see if it goes through.

http://media.live.harnesslink.com/files/f1325532682.docx

Give this a whirl. Fingers crossed it works. 99 pages total.
It's interesting reading, at least I think it is. State to State, the US as compared to CAN etc. when you compare the figures, most of the time you find most of the jurisdictions are around the same number but sometimes there are huge differences.
I can't see why we have been thus far unable to publish something similar here in Oz. There's no need to try and re-invent the wheel. We could surely use this list or something similar as a template at least. Interested in your thoughts.

Rgds

Jaimie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by triplev123

http://media.live.harnesslink.com/files/f1325532682.docx

Give this a whirl. Fingers crossed it works. 99 pages total.
It's interesting reading, at least I think it is. State to State, the US as compared to CAN etc. when you compare the figures, most of the time you find most of the jurisdictions are around the same number but sometimes there are huge differences.
I can't see why we have been thus far unable to publish something similar here in Oz. There's no need to try and re-invent the wheel. We could surely use this list or something similar as a template at least. Interested in your thoughts.

Rgds

Jaimie

---

Thanks Jamie,
in between having dinner with the tribe, separating teenagers from trying to intellectualy maim one another with verbal tripe and batoning down the hatches for the three horses in my backyard for a storm about to hit,..... a ten minute over view tells that this doc displays widely varying withdrawal times, dosages and dosing methods of not only theraputic drugs (e.g. hard call to define testosterone as theraputic) but also performance enhancing, but not residual permissable levels at point of competion, so given this I think one would need a little more education before I would form any firm opinions on any of it at all.

If you want to pick on a particular therapeutic and start from there, that might work?

Personally I am a great believer that residual levels in the horse's system are a more accurate indicator on potential performance enhancement, than withdrawal times Vs dosage and dosing method. obviously this will vary from individual to individual, that is of course why a safety factor would need to be built into recommended treatment rates. ( although personaly I don't think we need to focuss on that aspect, the drug companies are quite adept on their own in this regard.)

You're welcome Dan. I agree re: picking some sort of a starting point. My old mate Phenylbutazone is, as I said before, a Poster Child for this.