BHA Steriod Policy Stirs U.S. Debate

by T.D. Thornton

With a Mar. 2 deadline looming for implementation of the British Horse Racing Authority’s new zero-tolerance steroid policy, United States breeders, consignors and sales company officials are voicing concerns about how the new rules will affect the value of exports and whether the regulations are being forced upon the marketplace before adequate testing protocols are in place to ensure compliance. 

BHA guidelines initially released in June 2014 mandated that “a horse must not be administered an anabolic steroid at any point in its life” under penalty of being ineligible to start in Britain for 14 months. 

The original target date for the new rules had been Jan. 1, 2015, with the intent of incorporating foals of 2015 under the new guidelines. But the BHA recently pushed back the start date to March to work out logistics after industry stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic cited confusion and ambiguity. 

Clarification could come as early as Thursday, when the BHA is expected to publish expanded details of its steroid policy. 
“I think the spirit of it is good, that we want to get he most organic, pure product that we can to the racetrack,” said Mark Taylor, vice president of marketing and public sales operations at Taylor Made Sales in Nicholasville, Ky. “But when you institute something like this, you have to think it through to the entire lifetime of the horse, and get broad-based input before you implement it.” 

Geoffrey Russell, director of sales at Keeneland Association, Inc., said that when he spoke with BHA officials at the Tattersalls sale in December as part of group discussions with the Society of International Thoroughbred Auctioneers, there was “open communication” about potential problems. But the meeting concluded without key issues being resolved. 

“They have a whole pile of questions that we raised that we need answers for,” Russell said. “It’s quite confusing at the moment. When they come back to us with answers, everybody will have a clearer page to work from.” 
Topping the list of concerns for U.S. sellers are: 

•The zero-tolerance rule being unfair to horses that might have received anabolics for legitimate medical reasons. 
•The issue of liability if an auctioned horse passes the U.S. steroid-free standard (45 days before the sale) but later is found to have failed the BHA standard (dating to birth). 
•The feasibility of having large numbers of horses tested by accredited testing facilities. Horses imported into Britain will need proof of a negative anabolic steroids sample; the BHA will require hair testing, a more exacting process that is not currently the standard in the U.S. 

And although it’s not always articulated in this debate, the question of money is paramount: Will European buyers shy away from U.S. horses at auction without some sort of new disclaimer to ascertain that a horse has been steroid-free for its entire lifetime? Will even the perception that U.S. horses might be “dirty” affect their values? 

“It most definitely would,” said Ocala-based consignor Eddie Woods. “This is more of a strategy, in my opinion, by the British authorities to sway the competition in the States back to the British market. With zero tolerance now they’re just tightening the string. Because the States are not zero tolerance, there’s always been a little bit more negativity towards their horses. I think every time you look up, we’re sort of easing [toward cleaner horses in the U.S.]. But it’s not going to happen overnight.” 

Craig Bandoroff, owner of Denali Stud in Paris, Ky., and president of the Consignors & Commercial Breeders Association (CBA), said the BHA policy is an “over-reaction” and that the new rules will be “problematic” for U.S. sellers. 
“I think you have to ask, is there some ulterior motive here?” Bandoroff said. “Horses from France and Ireland are grandfathered in. They don’t have to be tested this year. But American horses have to be tested. Why is that? Who really knows what the real motivations are? But obviously, we’re going to adhere to their policy, because we have an export product that does very well over there.” 

Because anabolic steroids mimic the male hormone testosterone, they have a long history of abuse as a performance-enhancing substance. As recently as 2008, Big Brown legally campaigned on anabolics while winning the first two legs of the Triple Crown. Shortly thereafter, U.S. authorities began cracking down on allowing horses to race on steroids. 
U.S. sales companies were slightly ahead of racing regulators. In 2008, Keeneland, Ocala Breeders’ Sales, Fasig-Tipton and Barretts Equine Limited all adopted a policy established by the Sales Integrity Program prohibiting exogenous anabolic steroids from being administered 45 days prior to an auction. As the policy stands now, at the purchaser’s request and expense, drug testing will be performed immediately after the horse is sold. Any presence of steroids is grounds for the sale to be rescinded. 

“In general, our industry is supportive about prohibiting or limiting the use of anabolics. But the devil is in the details as to how to get there,” said Tom Ventura, sales director for OBS. 

“I don’t feel that we have a major problem, and I think by and large, the vast majority of breeders are bringing a steroid-free horse to the sales ring already,” said Taylor, who serves on the CBA board of directors. “But we have to do the due diligence and work together and be smart about it so we don’t get a positive test on a high-dollar horse and then unravel it.” 

Russell called it a case of perception not matching reality. 

“Where the difference of opinion might come is [whether anabolic steroids can be used for] therapeutic reasons,” Russell said. “The abuse of the medications is the problem, not the medications themselves. Now by taking these medications off the shelves, is that a good thing for animal husbandry? The BHA’s policy is zero tolerance. Now therapeutic applications are just as guilty.” 

Taylor gave the example of a horse suffering from physitis, a painful inflammation of growth plates in the long bones of a growing foal. In that case, he said, the administration of anabolics would be medically beneficial. 

“We’ve always been very reluctant to use them, but as any horseman will tell you, there are rare instances in which anabolic steroids are therapeutic,” Taylor said. “I think in this conversation, there are people who would say ‘Never. We’ve never used steroids.’ But that’s not the case. 

“We have to understand what we can and cannot do, and try to do the best job for our owners and horses,” Taylor continued. “Because there are cases where using anabolic steroids is not trying to gain an edge in the marketplace or in competition. It’s trying to get the horse back to optimum health as fast as you can. Those are not everyday occurrences, but they do exist.” 

Bandoroff said the BHA errs in making no distinction between legitimate therapeutic use and performance enhancement.

“If a horse has an anabolic steroid as a weanling or as a short yearling, how could that possibly affect its racing performance?” Bandoroff said. “If you want your horse to go to Europe or to have that potential, you’re going to have to adhere by their rules, unless they come to their senses and come up with more reasonable rules. We’ll be taking tests of our yearlings to show them, here they are—they’re clean.” 

In terms of responsibility and liability, Taylor outlined a different scenario that he said had yet to be addressed by the BHA: An individual buys a weanling for $150,000, then sells the horse for $1 million as a yearling to a British client. 
“Well this guy who’s been doing everything he’s supposed to do, he treated this horse with great natural horsemanship to get it to that point,” Taylor said. “But that horse could have had some contamination before he ever got it. And now he’s penalized and has the problem. 

“What it will force pinhookers to do is to test all the horses they buy at their point of purchase, and it starts to become a financial drain,” Taylor continued. “These tests, from what I understand, are from $500 to $750 a horse. For breeders who are already struggling to make a profit, it’s a pretty serious burden to put on them, especially when they are already doing the right thing.” 

That’s assuming consignors and sales companies can even get the hair samples tested in the U.S. 

“One obvious problem is that the volume of testing the labs can do in England is very small relative to what we would require to have all of our horses tested,” Taylor said. “They have not approved any U. S. labs to do this work. So logistically, it’s going to be very impractical to even get the testing done.” 

Bandoroff said sellers may have to scramble to provide other forms of assurance to buyers until hair testing labs are accredited in the U.S. 

“I’m sure agents are going to be asking us. And obviously, in my line of work telling the truth is important,” Bandoroff said. “We’ll be asking our clients who we sell for to go back through their records so we know what the situation is.” 
When queried by the TDN, Robin Mounsey, media manager for the BHA, wrote in an email that he could not respond to the concerns of U.S. sellers ahead of the BHA’s official publication of its policy update on Thursday. 

“I would love to have an open discussion with somebody from the BHA,” said Taylor. “We all want to get the best product to the sale and we want to work with the international community to keep commerce going in a healthy way. We need to have communication, and we need to understand how we make this thing work so we can all benefit from it. I think the spirit of it is good. The logistics and the practicality is what we have to work through.”