The presence of drugs or the absence of smarts
The bureaucrat’s goal is to render intelligence unnecessary. The bureaucrat’s problem is that nothing improves when purged of intelligence. And because bureaucracy regulates horse racing, the bureaucrat’s problem has become the sport’s problem.
Rarely has that been on such conspicuous display as it has been this past week, with the reported positive tests for horses trained by Richard Dutrow and Steve Asmussen. The reports caused a furor in some circles. Most of all, though, they contributed to the general and mistaken perception of horse racing as a sport riddled with cheaters and dopers.
Looked at more soberly, the reports can be seen as further evidence of horse racing’s suicidal tendencies. Further evidence, too, that nothing improves when purged of intelligence.
In Kentucky, a post-race test found Salute The Count, who’s trained by Dutrow, with 41 picograms of Clenbuterol. The limit in Kentucky is 25 picograms, which is thought to allow for a 72-hour withdrawal period. In truth, the withdrawal period can vary from horse to horse. And the withdrawal period in some states is 48 hours; in others, 24 hours. In other words, the test wouldn’t even have been regarded as a positive in many states. The limit in Louisiana, for example, is 500 picograms. And so Dutrow was guilty only of bad timing, not doping.
As Jennie Rees of the Louisville Courier-Journal suggests in her superb reporting of the incident, this is what happens when rules vary from state to state and when testing standards remain inconsistent. This is what happens when a bureaucracy purged of intelligence takes over.
The difference of 16 picograms, between Salute The Count’s level and the permissible level, is meaningless. A picogram is one-trillionth of a gram. You could fit 16 picograms on the head of pin and still have room for a chorus of angels.
But this will be classified as a medication violation. Some in the media will refer to it as yet another doping transgression; it’ll fit in nicely with the racing-as-chemical-warfare view. And so the negativity just continues to roll, thanks to a regulatory process that’s purged of intelligence.
The Asmussen incident is equally frustrating. After Timber Trick won a maiden race at Lone Star Park on May 10, she tested positive for a matabolite of lidocaine.
Immediately the situation looks strange. Timber Trick is a lightly raced 3-year-old filly, hardly a candidate for the sort of problems that lidocaine, a local anesthetic with only brief effectiveness, might relieve. And why would the leading trainer in America, who has the reigning Horse of the Year in his barn, risk so much to win a maiden race at Lone Star Park? It makes no sense. But neither does a process purged of intelligence.
Texas has a zero-tolerance policy regarding such medication. “Zero-tolerance” is synonymous with “zero-intelligence.” The situation reminds me of the school district that had a zero-tolerance policy regarding knives, but then failed to distinguish between a switchblade and nail clippers, the result being the suspension of a little girl in elementary school.
Asmussen is far from elementary school, of course. And if he or one of his assistants gave Timber Trick an illicit injection of lidocaine in an effort to win a race, he should be suspended at least six months.
But only a test quantifying the amount of lidocaine in the sample would indicate that. And the Texas Racing Commission has denied Asmussen’s request for a quantifying test, according to his attorney, Maggi Moss. The commission also has denied a request for a test of blood, which is more telling than urine. They’ve also denied the request to send a split sample to LSU, where Steven Barker, one of the nation’s foremost experts, could analyze it.
As far as Texas is concerned, it doesn’t make any difference if the Timber Trick sample contained one picogram or a million. And, of course, that’s a policy purged not only of intelligence but also of common sense and understanding.
Lidocaine is everywhere. We could walk into a Walgreen’s and probably find more than a hundred products containing lidocaine. If any of them somehow found their way to Timber Trick, perhaps by way of a groom’s hands, that would explain the positive.
Ever since the positive test became public, I’ve heard stories about lidocaine contamination. One veterinarian said he once cared for a horse that had a lidocaine positive and it was a horse that he knew absolutely had never been given the medication. But a horse that formerly occupied his stall had been given lidocaine when he had a wound stitched up.
Contamination is very possible. Was Timber Trick’s sample contaminated? Or was she perhaps given lidocaine as a local anesthetic when she got a few stitches a week or so prior to the race? Or was she given lidocaine in some illicit effort to win a maiden race?
A quantifying test would at least supply some insight.
But bureaucracy doesn’t look for insight. Its goal is to render intelligence unnecessary, as a zero-tolerance policy makes clear. Bureaucracy doesn’t trust people to think. And so it establishes rules and procedures that anybody can follow to arrive at a good decision. Well, a good decision most of the time. And in situations void of complexity.
But with all those other times and with all those complex situations that inevitably arise, bureaucracy fails. It fails miserably and embarrassingly. A process purged of intelligence can’t handle complexities, but will only subject the sport and its competitors to unwarranted ridicule and suspicion.


Recent Comments