It's about the rules, not the facts

Looking back over the week’s newspapers, I came across a story about President Barack Obama’s recent trip to Moscow, where his criticism of Russian leadership was couched, as it had to be, in diplomatic generalities. In the story, he’s quoted to say, “The arc of history shows that governments which serve their own people survive and thrive; governments which serve only their own power do not.”

Reading that, I suddenly realized what this situation, this contretemps, is all about with Steve Asmussen’s “positive” test from a year ago. It’s all about the Texas Racing Commission’s serving its own power, to borrow Obama’s phrase.

At Tuesday’s hearing before the board of stewards, just before Steven Barker testified, Mark Fenner, the attorney for the Texas Racing Commission, said the testimony would be irrelevant. Fenner had a why-bother attitude about Barker's appearance. Barker is the chief chemist for the testing laboratory at LSU and a nationally recognized expert on equine drug testing. But his testimony was irrelevant, Fenner said, because this was a matter of law, not fact.

By law, he meant, I assume, rules, specifically the state’s no-tolerance rule regarding lidocaine. But by fact, he clearly meant the facts regarding the “positive” test. Barker testified that the urine sample taken from Timber Trick after she won on May 10, 2008, at Lone Star suggested possible contamination. If a horse is administered, lidocaine, he explained, the sample will typically contain evidence of the parent drug and two metabolites. Timber Trick’s sample tested “positive” for one metabolite: no parent drug, just one metabolite.

Those are some of the facts that the Texas Racing Commission apparently thinks irrelevant. The blood sample, Barker testified, would provide a clear indication of whether the filly was actually given lidocaine. And isn’t that the essential fact? But that, too, like the blood sample, is apparently irrelevant. The stewards denied Asmussen’s request to test the blood.

Asmussen, who repeatedly has asserted that neither he nor anybody in his employ ever administered anything illicit to Timber Trick, isn’t the only horseman in Texas with a “positive” for lidocaine or one of its metabolites. But as the leading trainer in the country, he’s the most visible.

In June, trainer Jerimiah West (no relation) was suspended six months and fined $1,500 because the urine sample collected from a horse he trained, Mad At Cha, who ran second as the 2-1 favorite on April 10, tested “positive” for lidocaine and hydroxylidocaine. West, who trained only six horses, didn’t appeal, he explained, mainly because he didn’t have the money to do so.

“You’d have to be insane to give a horse lidocaine,” West said, “because you know you’re going to be caught. . . . This horse didn’t have any issues. There was no reason to use it.”

West, who had no prior infractions, is now unemployed and banned from all racetracks. He said he was shocked by the “positive” and had “no idea” how it happened, especially since most racetrack veterinarians no longer use lidocaine.

“The Texas Racing Commission may not care about Jerimiah West,” said trainer Danny Pish, who once employed West as an assistant, “but people on the backside who know him sure care. He would never cheat. He’s a model citizen.”

And so what’s the explanation for these “positives”? Lidocaine is contained in many lotions and creams, several over-the-counter treatments, Barker said, explaining that the possibility of contamination is significant.

Back in 2002, Hall of Fame trainer Bill Mott had a lidocaine “positive” in New York. Believing this to be an important issue, he came here Tuesday to testify on behalf of Asmussen. The low level of Mott’s “positive” suggested contamination; New York officials suspended him two weeks (later reduced to one) and fined him $1,000. But in Texas those are irrelevant facts.

In Texas, it’s a matter of rule, not fact. The no-tolerance rule. You have to wonder, don’t you, how many major stables in the future will be willing to race in a state that has no regard for the facts. And you have to wonder, don't you, how far confidence in the sport will tumble.

And so in a few days, Asmussen could be suspended and fined. He no doubt will appeal. But the inevitable headlines will give racing fans and horsemen all over the country a shudder. It’s probably the same kind of shudder the Russian people felt when Obama spoke about governments that serve only their own power.

 

Comments

[bullring]

Oh, poor Asmussen. Give me a break.

[Mr Ed]

asmussen is innocent and will be \\\"proven\\\" innocent by the court

oj simson was innocent to as the court proved

[Gary West]

By the way, Glenn, Dr. Barker has indeed testified in another Asmussen case. That was in Louisiana a few years ago. But Barker testified against, not for, him.

[Gary West]

Glenn,

You're quite right in that Asmussen doesn't invite much sympathy. But, to borrow from Tig: Nice guy, not a very nice guy - that shouldn't determine what's a violation. And this is about much more than Asmussen, bigger problems that go beyond Asmussen and involve the difficulty regulators everywhere obviously are having in distinguishing between the people who are tryig to cheat -- and I think there are very few -- and those who just get caught in the bureaucratic web because of logistical errors or contamination. The public, I think, has lost confidence in the sport in part because regulators have used such a non-discriminating broad brush. (The Dutrow case in Kentucky was, in my view, another poorly handled siutation.) Public perception is problem. There's a probability, a fairly high probability based on what I've learned, that contamination is the explanation here; certainly no horseman I've spoken with believes the Asmussen barn administered lidocaine to the filly; I'd guess that virtually nobody who knows the facts thinks Asmussen tried to cheat in any way here; but you and I both know what the headlines will be the day after the ruling. And then there's the problem of consistency. One trainer gets suspended a week; in another state, another trainer gets six months.

[Glenn Craven]

The biggest trouble for Steve Asmussen isn't a hard-case, power-hungry board or too-stringent rules. It's Steve Asmussen.

I don't know Jeremiah West (nor personally know Asmussen), but Asmussen's violation list is lengthy, nationwide and reads like taking inventory at a pharmacy. Barker has been an expert witness for Asmussen more than once, and the accidental contamination and "my groom wasn't watching him all the time, maybe it's sabotage" defenses are old stand-bys.

I have no idea how often Steve Asmussen has been guilty of intentionally doping a horse vs. he or his employees making a relatively simple error that, over thousands of starters annually, could result in a positive.

But your hard-luck case who might be getting bullied by the authorities is Jeremiah West.

Steve Asmussen is an old hand in the violations/hearings/appeals process and usually comes out O.K. in the end (since suspensions in the U.S. do not amount to lost business), and doesn't make for a sympathetic figure.