Jerry,
Assume you have heard about Badgetts TCO2 excess. One of the last guys you would think.Barn is one of many in NY that are felt to race cold.I remember the TG sheet for the horse in question (Wild Conga) who looked good going in that day and they liked him, paid under $6.00 from memory. Did you have Wild Conga \"moving up\"on Jan 9 when he raced with a 37.3 TCO2 level(nysrwb permits a level of 37, I think)
I understand Badgett used an Electrolyte product 2 days out which he feels caused the excess.A NY guy who lawyers up for trainers/jocks feels that this is a BS excess since this horse has a normal level of 35 most of the time, which I hear is a high.
Mike
1-- He paired up his previous # in the race.
2-- I would like to know what his reading was in both races. If they published them, we would.
3-- As far as I know, no horse hits 35 on his own. They may mean he gets there after lasix and whatever else, without any intentional addition of alkalyzing agents, but even that is extremely unlikely.
Horses with chronic small airway disease routinely run high.
That\'s one of the many reasons why the \"illegal\" TCO2 level is set at 37, and not lower. In fact it used to be 36 in Australia years ago, and had to be raised - too many false positives.
Two interesting studies:
Equine Veterinary Journal: 2006 Nov;38(6):543-8
Factors influencing pre-race serum concentration of total carbon dioxide in Thoroughbred horses racing in California.
METHODS: Pre-race serum TCO2 concentrations from 5028 starts made by 2,349 horses trained by 287 trainers at 2 racetracks in California during 2005 were examined.
POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: TCO2 concentration is associated with improved performance although the magnitude of effect was quite small. Regulatory programmes based on monitoring should consider the influence of other factors on TCO2 concentration.
---------------------
Equine Veterinary Journal 1992 Mar;24(2)75-6. Effects of induced alkalosis on performance in thoroughbreds during a 1,600-m race.
There is considerable debate regarding the ergogenic effects of sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) on racing performance in horses. Anecdotal evidence suggests that NaHCO3 improves performance by increasing the buffering capacity of the blood and delaying the onset of hydrogen ion-induced fatigue.
In a cross-over study, 16 Thoroughbred racehorses were given an aqueous solution of NaHCO3 (0.4 g/kg in 1 litre H2O) or a control treatment (1 litre H2O) before a 1600-m race. Treatments were administered 3 h before the race, which was the time to peak buffering capacity (2.5-3.0 h) determined in a separate study. Before the race, there was a significant increase in venous HCO3- and pH in the NaHCO3-treated horses. After the race, there was a significant increase in venous blood pH and lactate in the NaHCO3-treated horses. Collectively, the data suggest an improved buffering capacity of the blood after NaHCO3 treatment. However, there was no change in race times or venous partial pressure of carbon dioxide. Therefore, the administration of NaHCO3 provided no ergogenic benefit to horses competing in a 1,600-m race.
The rules for TCO2 testing in Australia:
VETERINARY
TESTING FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF BICARBONATE & ALKALINISING AGENTS IN RACEHORSES
Dr Craig Suann
For many years, it has been a practice for racehorses to be administered small quantities of sodium bicarbonate or other alkalinising agents in the feed prior to racing. It has been thought that sodium bicarbonate used in this fashion helps horses recover after a race by dissipating muscle lactate, helps horses that \"tie-up\", and prevents \"acidosis\" due to high grain feeding. However, there is no scientific evidence that bicarbonate supplementation is useful in managing horses that are known to \"tie-up\", and its effects on recovery and digestion have also not been demonstrated.
A major concern in both horse racing codes is the alleged practice of large amounts of sodium bicarbonate administered by stomach tube to horses prior to racing. Apart from causing diarrhoea and colic, the image and integrity of racing and the welfare of racing horses are at risk due to this practice. It has been proposed that bicarbonate loading might improve the performance of horses by delaying the onset of fatigue through the buffering effect on lactate accumulation, particularly for horses competing in staying races. While there have been no scientific studies that have statistically demonstrated improved performance in horses due to bicarbonate administration, there is no doubt that there is a strong view amongst many trainers worldwide that there are beneficial effects due to bicarbonate administration in certain horses competing in races over certain distances.
Rules were introduced by both horse racing codes in 1992 to limit the amount of bicarbonate and related substances that could be administered to racehorses prior to racing. These substances are collectively called alkalinising agents. It is important to understand that the Australian Rules of Racing do not refer to bicarbonate specifically, although alkalinising agents are noted in the list of pharmacological categories in AR178B(2). The bicarbonate concentration and the plasma total carbon dioxide concentration are closely correlated, and it is more convenient to measure the plasma total carbon dioxide concentration rather than the bicarbonate concentration.
Sampling for compliance with the total plasma carbon dioxide rule {AR.178C(1)(a)}
In thoroughbred racing, the Australian Rules of Racing make it an offence for a trainer to present a horse to race with a plasma total carbon dioxide (TCO2) concentration in excess of 36 millimoles per litre (mmol/L). This concentration is the same as the international threshold for TCO2 contained in Article 6 of the International Agreement on Breeding and Racing. Because other alkalinising agents are also converted to carbon dioxide by the horse, the use of all alkalinising agents is controlled by the same rules.
The Stewards can monitor and detect a prohibited administration of an alkalinising agent prior to racing using simple but effective sampling strategies. A blood sample is all that is needed and the Stewards can direct the sampling of as many runners as they please, and the sampling of any runner on more than one occasion. If necessary, horses may also be sampled after racing, or tested unannounced in their stables if there is a concern about a race day value.
Naturally occurring, feeding and husbandry factors that affect the TCO2 concentration
In thoroughbred racing, the Australian Rules of Racing make it an offence for a trainer to present a horse to race with a plasma total carbon dioxide (TCO2) concentration in excess of 36 millimoles per litre (mmol/L). This concentration is the same as the international threshold for TCO2 contained in Article 6 of the International Agreement on Breeding and Racing. Because other alkalinising agents are also converted to carbon dioxide by the horse, the use of all alkalinising agents is controlled by the same rules.
The Stewards can monitor and detect a prohibited administration of an alkalinising agent prior to racing using simple but effective sampling strategies. A blood sample is all that is needed and the Stewards can direct the sampling of as many runners as they please, and the sampling of any runner on more than one occasion. If necessary, horses may also be sampled after racing, or tested unannounced in their stables if there is a concern about a race day value.
Naturally occurring, feeding and husbandry factors that affect the TCO2 concentration
Naturally occurring levels of total plasma carbon dioxide
The plasma total carbon dioxide concentration (TCO2) is a measure of the amount of available carbon dioxide in the blood of the horse. The TCO2 concentration varies between horses. A number of factors can reduce the natural level, but there are no naturally occurring factors that have been proven to increase the TCO2 concentration to the prohibited range in a normal horse.
In a survey of 515 stabled thoroughbred racehorses in metropolitan regions around Australia and published in the Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of Racing Analysts and Veterinarians in 2000, the average plasma TCO2 concentration was 30.77 mmol/L. Taking into account the variation of the sampled horse population (known as the standard deviation which in this survey was 1.38) the odds of a \"normal\" horse having a TCO2 level exceeding the action limit set out in the Rules of thoroughbred racing were greater than 600,000 to 1.
Types of alkalinising agents and frequency of administration
Apart from sodium bicarbonate, numerous other alkalinising agents can also increase the TCO2 concentration if fed or administered to a horse. Alkalinising substances that are sometimes found in proprietary preparations and feed additives, or are sold separately for administration include citrates and citric acid, and lactate, succinate and acetate salts. There is a limit to the amount of alkalinising salts that a horse will ingest, although some can be conditioned to eat a high salt diet, and some citrate preparations are made to be very palatable.
It must be remembered that the Rules do not make reference to the source of the alkalinising salts. Bicarbonate and other salts fed in the ration are treated no differently to those administered as a drench. The effect of feeding or administering multiple sources of alkalinising salts will be additive, which means that all of the doses and sources could give rise to a plasma TCO2 concentration that contravenes the Rules. To avoid this, trainers must know every alkalinising agent that is given to their horse, including those included in prepared feed and in commercially available supplements.
Trainers are also reminded of their obligations under the following Rules of Racing when it comes to the administration of bicarbonate and other alkalinising agents:
\"AR.64G.
1. No horse engaged to be run in a race or trial shall without the permission of the Stewards be stomach-tubed within 24 hours of the appointed starting time for such race or trial. For the purposes of this rule \"stomach-tubed\" means any application to a horse of a naso-gastric tube.
2. Any horse that has been stomach-tubed contrary to the provisions of subrule (1) of this rule may be prohibited from starting in any relevant race or trial, and the trainer of the horse and any other person involved at any relevant time may be punished.\"
\"AR. 178E
1. Notwithstanding the provisions of AR.178C(2), no person without the permission of the Stewards may administer or cause to be administered any medication to a horse on race day prior to such horse running in a race.
2. The Stewards may order the withdrawal from a race engagement any horse that has received medication in contravention of subrule (1) of this rule.\"
(Add to definitions in AR.1:\' medication means treatment with drugs or other substances\')
In effect, AR.178E prohibits all treatment of horses with drugs and other substances (including sodium bicarbonate and other alkalinising agents) by injection, stomach tubing, oral syringe, topical application, inhalation or other means on race day prior to their racing engagement. Essentially, only normal feeding and drinking will be permitted pre-race on the day of the race.
Analysis of blood samples for TCO2
The Rules of Racing refer to the plasma total carbon dioxide concentration. The Australian racing laboratories agreed many years ago to use the same instrument (\"Beckman Synchron El-ise\") and the same methods and controls to minimise variation within and between laboratories. The same instruments and methods were used for the developmental work that led to the Rules. Further, a certified reference material is used to guarantee the precision and accuracy of the measurement of plasma TCO2 as well as the use of more reliable calibrators for the Beckman instrument.
Uncertainty in analytical measurement
The allowance for uncertainty of measurement is always made in the trainers\' favour. Currently, an allowance of 1.0mmol/L applies to the plasma TCO2 measurements made by all the Australian racing laboratories when samples are screened and confirmed.
Conclusion
The threshold for plasma TCO2 is designed to control the inappropriate pre-race administration of bicarbonate and other alkalinising agents. Trainers need to be careful if they are going to supplement their horses with these substances in the period leading up to a race. A good working knowledge of the husbandry factors that influence the plasma TCO2 concentration is required before the risk of an infringement of the Rules can be assessed. Trainers are also reminded of their obligations with respect to AR.64G and AR.178E when considering the administration of sodium bicarbonate and other alkalinising agents to horses close to race time.
The Jockey Club Thoroughbred Safety Committee Recommendations:
www.jockeyclub.com/resources/tco2.pdf
The first study is the Rick Arthur study that TGJB mentions from time to time. Actually, the study was done at Texas A&M. Rick Arthur is presumably named as an author because of his role in providing access to data.
The following is an excerpt from an article entitled \"Lactic acid--the latest performance-enhancing drug\" that appeared in the August 20, 2004 issue of Science (a prestigious journal):
\"For many athletes, coaches, and sports commentators, muscle fatigue and the accumulation of lactic acid (generated from the anaerobic breakdown of glycogen) are more or less synonymous. However, the importance of lactic acid in muscle fatigue is now under scrutiny. On page 1144 of this issue, Pedersen et al. present a further challenge to the traditional view with their demonstration that lactic acid, in fact, has beneficial effects on the performance of fatigued muscles.\"
Bit,
In 1989 shakes showed up in the harness racing world. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, New Jersey and Illinois. At that time, I was importing pacers from New Zealand which I was selling or racing at Yonkers and Roosevelt.Imported about 50 over 4 years. Got close to a Kiwi(new zealander) who advised me that the horses we were working out in New Zealand were being \"shaked\" before we got to the various farms to work them. It was the first time I had heard the term and it was explained the horses moved up with the proper dose of alkinizing agents.
In 1991, the first testing was conducted during a live harness meet in Australia. The results were mixed. Some horses did well, others did not.It was concluded at that time that the proper amount of alkinizing agent was a horse by horse thing. One size did not fit all. They began testing in earnest, banned shakes and set TCO2 levels.That was 18 years ago.Today they have better stuff and easier ways to administer it but in NY they have tested since 05-06 and have recorded very few violations of the threshold.
Most are fooled by the public relations thing going on by the empty suits that run racing, esp in Cali. When they ban Lasix, Bute(two known move up drugs)they you can take them serious.I\'m certain Dr Arthur knows all about the benefits of those two drugs.
Lasix is the biggest joke with 90% of all horses running on it but only 30% or so really needing it. How come?
Mike
Sight-- coupla things.
1-- In the California study, a) there was correlation between finish position and TCO2 level, and between trainer and TCO2 level, as you know, and in a game where inches matter, magnitude is relative. But it is also important to remember that because of the rules and testing that take place in California, 99.9% of the horses tested were under the limit. It would be interesting to see what the results would look like if there was testing, but no rule limiting TCO2.
California is the state that takes TCO2 most seriously. They actually test, and do it PRE-race, which many states don\'t.
By the way, regarding Badgett-- I\'m not sure, but I think the threshhold level in NY is 39.
2-- As far as the 1992 study goes, as someone who measures this for a living, I would like to know exactly what \"no change in race times\" means. Details could definitely matter.
Miff-- the problem with banning lasix completely is, what do you do with that 30%. I was asked about this by the Jockey Club, and I said it\'s tough enough for owners financially now. However, that doesn\'t mean that steps can\'t be taken to try and make sure that only the right 30% get it.
Step one in seriously dealing with the drug problem was the JC committee making its initial recommendations. There\'s supposed to be an important announcement in the next week or two that will be step two, a huge step. Then things will really get interesting. Step four will involve everyone who reads this, and everyone they know who bets horses. It may not come to that, but history indicates it probably will.
No rest for the weary.
Rule Governing Blood Gas Levels (TC02)
Excessive TCO2 levels in horses are a violation. TCO2 levels are excessive at 37 millimoles/liter, or for horses properly administered furosemide (Salix or Lasix), 39 millimoles/liter. The Board rules establish penalty guidelines, a procedure for trainers to show naturally high levels of TCO2 in a racehorse, and provisions for voidable claims.
JB,
I agree on Lasix, it would pbobably wipe out some smaller outfits. My point was that if you don\'t know( I realize you do) that there is a PR exercise going on, esp in Cali, then you have not followed the actions of most racing venues over the last 20 years.They did next to nothing and turned a blind eye to most ongoings.Allocated monies for better testing/security etc increased only marginally for years on their watch.
Mike
Miff-- the guy who has been publicly beating that exact drum-- that money for testing has not kept up-- is Rick Arthur. I think he would agree that until about 3 years ago California wasn\'t taking the situation seriously enough, they are definitely trying now. Especially at Santa Anita.
Stay tuned.
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When they ban Lasix, Bute(two known move
> up drugs)they you can take them serious.I\'m
> certain Dr Arthur knows all about the benefits of
> those two drugs.
>
> Lasix is the biggest joke with 90% of all horses
> running on it but only 30% or so really needing
> it. How come?
>
> Mike
Well put Mike. Furthermore, given the latest studies on the questionable effects of Lasix on bleeding, the 30% figure of horses actually needing Lasix is probably much smaller.
I don\'t think the milkshake problem can be totally ignored either. The fact that trainers believe alkalizing agents to be performance enhancing, know them to be illegal and still employ them proves intent to cheat and should be punished for the integrity of the game.
Bob
Appropriate feed is also performance enhancing, and sometimes by lengths.
So are the right shoes.
Shoeing the horse at the proper angles for the horse, with balance, can lengthen stride and efficiency.
Joint injections. Massage. Shockwave. RedCell. Lubrisyn. Adequan.
Floating and caring properly for teeth.
Giving Gastroguard (unbelievable improvement can happen)
A good exercise rider in the morning that can ride the horse a certain way and physically change it\'s muscular structure to better carry itself and be more efficient, stronger, longer-strided, faster. Huge changes can occur here.
A saddle that fits. A bit that fits.
Deworming appropriately.
The above can all be performance enhancing, and by LENGTHS in some horses. It\'s good horsemanship to practice it. Not every trainer and owner can afford the above, or does the above.
Sight, all the things you mention can be performance enhancing in the broad sense of the word. They are performance enhancing because they are in general health enhancing. The performance enhancing substances that are the problem and illegal are usually drugs or chemicals that not only are not health enhancing but may even enhance performance at the cost of health in some cases.
The point I was trying to make is that when a trainer knowingly gives a horse a substance he believes to be performance enhancing with full knowledge that it is against the law with the intent to gain a perceived unfair advantage over his fellow trainers who follow the rules, he should be punished.
Whether the substance is in fact performance enhancing or not is only relevant to the degree of punishment it draws. Attempted fraud and attempted murder are still serious crimes even when they fail. It\'s just a question of degree. Racing is in a crisis of public confidence and if it\'s serious about regaining legitimacy, needs to send a message to trainers who even try to cheat that they will not be tolerated in the sport.
Bob
Oh, I agree. I wasn\'t directly responding to your post, just putting some stuff out there. Sorry, shouldn\'t have linked it to your post.
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, I agree. I wasn\'t directly responding to your
> post, just putting some stuff out there. Sorry,
> shouldn\'t have linked it to your post.
No problem. It actually gave me the chance to better explain on my position.
Bob
Bob-- Actually, since you are here, maybe you (or NC Tony) can explain something to the people on this board. The TCO2 threshhold level is set at 37 because that is 2 (?) standard deviations above what would normally be a real positive. You can explain to us what that means, and the chance of getting a false positive.
And that\'s before we get to the 39 they use in NY.
Sight-- I went through the math on this a few days ago, explaining how unlikely it is that one trainer could get all or almost all of his horses to jump up that much, that abruptly. If Dutrow is doing this by worming his horses, he has a hell of an eye for horses that have worms.
One of the many problems with that type of logic is this-- when we look at what Frankel did in 2001, or Scott Lake does every day, we are dealing with older horses with previously established form and limits. To believe that you can get an individual 5yo to all of a sudden run much faster than he ever has before (as opposed to returning to his best, which is what good horsemen often do), you would have to believe that he has had that exact set of problems for every start of his whole career, and now suddenly-- and I mean instantly-- this guy has solved them, and that it\'s true of 15 horses in a row. Not likely. Not even remotely.
>> Bob-- Actually, since you are here, maybe you (or NC Tony) can explain >>something to the people on this board. The TCO2 threshhold level is set at 37 >>because that is 2 (?) standard deviations above what would normally be a real >>positive. You can explain to us what that means, and the chance of getting a >>false positive.
The TCO2 is set at 37 because that level cannot be attained naturally in nearly all horses.
A level set at two standard deviations from the mean should include 95% of horses\' natural levels.
The mean is NOT \"what would normally be a real positive\". It is NORMAL horses.
The mean is an arthmatic calculation (add them all together and divide by the number of horses you are looking at) but it is not necessarily a good representation of \"average\" (as horse sale results prove)
The standard deviation simply tells you how tightly or loosely your data points are grouped.
Unless statistics have changed since I\'ve been a scientist.
Sight-- you could pick a lot of numbers that horses could not naturally attain, the question is why this one. I remember it had something to do with standard deviations, I think two, but I could be wrong about that.
\"Dr. Scott Stanley, associate professor at the University of California-Davis Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory, discussed TCO2 testing July 14 as part of the National Horsemen\'s Benevolent and Protective Association Medication Committee meeting in Minneapolis. He said officials in California already have noticed trends.
From more than 60,000 samples, TCO2 readings have been as low as 18.3 millimoles and as high as 44.8 millimoles, according to Stanley\'s report. The mean reading is 31.5, plus or minus 2.06\"
Miff-- that\'s with lasix, which makes readings higher, and is for all horses, independent of whether they have been given alkalizers, I assume.
I think that the 37 mmol/L is more logically three standard deviations from the mean.
That level of 37 would then account for 99% of horses normally falling under that established level.
That leaves the rare horse that could still fall above 37 mmol/L it normally, with no cheating.
However most jurisdictions have provision for later proving that is the horses normal level.
You have to also know where and how those horses were sampled: in their stalls, pre-race holding barn, very hot day, etc. as so much can affect the results.
I assume it\'s pre-race holding barn, as that is the only time the track could reasonably legally get a needle into a horse.
Wonder if it includes post-race samples, however?
From what I understand, some tracks have been testing post-race, which will get lower readings, and keep some drugged horses under the limit. The Jockey Club covered this in their recommendations.
As far as I know, all horses tested in cal are pre-race.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bob-- Actually, since you are here, maybe you (or
> NC Tony) can explain something to the people on
> this board. The TCO2 threshhold level is set at 37
> because that is 2 (?) standard deviations above
> what would normally be a real positive. You can
> explain to us what that means, and the chance of
> getting a false positive.
>
> And that\'s before we get to the 39 they use in
> NY.
>
OK Jerry. Wish I knew how to post a picture of a Bell Curve for a visual presentation but hopefully my words will give the picture.
The mean is just the average value for some quality - in this case TCO2levels. In a normal arrangement or distribution all the other values are clustered either above or below this value symmetrically. The Standard Deviation is a measure of variability in a population and is roughly the average amount that each value (or measurement) varies from the mean in both directions - higher or lower. The 1st SD encompasses 68% of the population and therefore 32% will be higher or lower than the 1st SD. Since the distribution is normal, these 68% will be distributed with 16% above the upper limit of the SD and 16% below the lower limit. These areas are called tails because that's what they look like at each end of the Bell Curve
Now if we widen this to 2 SDs, this will encompass about 95% of the population with 5% left. 2.5% will be above the 37 upper limit (right tail) and 2.5 below the lower limit (left tail). Now I don't have the mean or value of the SD but I do have enough information to calculate the possibility of a horse not given alkalizing agents ending up in the right tail and thus being a false positive, is 2.5% or p=. 025 Of course if the upper limit is raised to 39 that would put less horses in the right tale and further reduce the possibility of false positives. If the upper limit were set at 3SDs the probability of false positives would be 0.3% or p=.003 If you give me more information, such as what the mean and SD were I could also calculate the probability (p) of false positives at the 39 upper limit.
Sighthound raised the important issue that this test is only appropriate if the population is normally distributed. For example, people's incomes and horse sale prices are not normally distributed but skewed towards the big prices. However biological and physiological values like height, weight, and glucose levels tend to be normally distributed so I would expect TCO2 levels to be normally distributed as well.
There are also test for normalcy that can be applied to answer this question.
Bob
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that the 37 mmol/L is more logically three
> standard deviations from the mean.
>
> That level of 37 would then account for 99% of
> horses normally falling under that established
> level.
I got the same impressions when doing the calculations. Jerry if you can get me the mean and standard deviation I can do a more complete test at 3 SDs. The numbers of false positives would be dramatically lower.
Bob