The Breeders' Cup Forum: RCI Chairman Willie Koester
Willie Koester shook up the North American racing world last March when he was elected chairman of the Association of Racing Commissioners International and joined the outgoing chairman, Dan Hartman of Colorado, in calling for a five-year phase-out of race-day medication.
Koester, an Ohio Thoroughbred owner and breeder for nearly 30 years who served as chairman of the Ohio State Racing Commission, was blunt in his reasoning: “Today over 99% of Thoroughbred racehorses and 70% of Standardbred racehorses have a needle stuck in them four hours before a race,” Koester said at the time. “That just does not pass the smell test with the public or anyone else except horse trainers who think it necessary to win a race.”
Their recommendation was followed by a flurry of activity: filing of a bill in Congress that would severely restrict the use of medication in horses throughout the United States and impose strict penalties for violators; decisions by the Breeders’ Cup to eliminate race-day medication for 2-year-olds in 2012 championship weekend races and in all races for 2013; a vote by the American Graded Stakes Committee to withhold the Grading of races for 2-year-olds beginning in 2012 if race-day medication is permitted; and recommendations by other groups to phase-out race-day drugs.
But the organization that started the dialog, the RCI, has not yet gone down that path. This week, RCI announced a new model rule calling for race-day administration by regulatory veterinarians (instead of private practitioners) of furosemide (Lasix, or Salix, used to treat exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage) and elimination of adjunct bleeder medications. RCI has not yet addressed the phase-out of race-day medication that Hartman and Koester recommended.
Koester, who remains chairman of RCI until March 2012, spoke with the Paulick Report about the issue. He said his views are his own and do not represent those of RCI.
Have you gotten any pushback on the Lasix issue from your own trainers and veterinarians?
Absolutely, and my horses still run on Lasix. Tom Tobin (chemist and drug-testing consultant) told me 20 years ago, “If you ever don’t run on Lasix, you’re a fool.” Even horses that don’t need it, get Lasix because everyone seems to think they run better.
This has gotten a tremendous amount of pushback from the HBPA (Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association). They ‘re not going to let this go.
Do you have some frustration that things are not moving faster?
Certainly. Dan (Hartman, outgoing RCI chairman) was more realistic than I was, saying five years. I’m not a proponent of cutting off Lasix from horses that have run on it. I think we need to start on a foal crop, and phase it out.
What’s the climate out there among the individual racing commissions that – barring federal legislation – will need to change their rules if we go medication free on race-day?
There are some states that would not vote for the complete elimination of race-day medication. I would say that the adjunct medication model rule will fly. As far as regulatory vets, you’ll have some states concerned about the cost to them of handling the Lasix shots.
Wouldn’t elimination of Lasix have a big impact on the number of horses in training?
When we met to talk about this at Belmont Park earlier this year, (veterinarian) Scott Palmer ran the numbers. He said that anywhere, at any time, there are about 60,000 horses in training in the U.S. If we got rid of Lasix, we’d lose anywhere from 120 to 540 horses that would be pulled out of the racing pool, which is less than 1%.
What’s been the position of the American Association of Equine Practitioners?
They are divided as well. It’s a money thing. There are a lot of vets that make hundreds of thousands of dollars giving Lasix shots. That’s a lot of money. I got pushback in Ohio when we got rid of steroids. On the 15th of the month these vets would go through the whole barn and give steroid shots. They see they’re losing Lasix revenue, and they’re not happy.
It just seems like anyone born after 1960 has never dealt with bleeders without having Lasix. This is all they know. I’ve heard (trainer) Todd Pletcher say he’s 1,000% in favor of Lasix, and adjunct bleeder medication as well. The science says the adjunct medication doesn’t do much, but 17 of 19 Kentucky Derby horses ran on it, and so did most of the Breeders’ Cup starters this year.
How divisive has this issue been for RCI?
It’s not been divisive. It’s been very good, though some states are tougher than others. Louisiana is tough. Their HBPA has a lot of stroke. When recommendations were made to drop the amount of Bute allowed, Louisiana did not go along. Neither did Kentucky.
Can we expect the RCI to change model rules and start the phaseout of Lasix before your term as chairman is over?
Not at this time. Everybody is walking on egg shells. They’re waiting to see what happens to the Breeders’ Cup and Graded Stakes. If they go well, then we’ll see what happens.
What is your understanding of the federal legislation banning all medication?
I think it’s going nowhere. You’ll hear about this kind of thing around Derby or Breeders’ Cup. But if you’ve got big guys pushing it, who knows?
The regulation and virtual elimination of anabolic steroids went pretty quickly. Why is this taking longer?
The steroids push was different. (Trainer Rick) Dutrow shot his mouth off (about Big Brown getting steroids) and the filly (Eight Belles) went down in the Kentucky Derby and there was a huge outcry. Larry Jones said Eight Belles was not on steroids and the necropsy confirmed that she wasn’t. The Barry Bonds thing (steroids scandal) was going on in baseball, and people in racing felt we needed to act.
I believe there’s been some progress. In this business the wheels turn pretty slowly. I breed horses and I study bloodlines. I think getting rid of the bleeders is important. With Lasix, you don’t even know who they are.
