On the RP site this morning :
New drug claim raises question over BHA tests
BY GRAHAM GREEN6.57AM 6 JUL 2009
THE effectiveness of the BHA's drug-testing procedures has been called into question by the revelation that a horse running on tranexamic acid escaped detection after winning this year.
A trainer, who wishes to remain anonymous, informed the Racing Post on Sunday that the anti-bleeding medication - whose use on the Queen's Moonlit Path resulted in Nicky Henderson receiving a three-month ban from making entries and a record £40,000 fine - was given to a filly on the recommendation of a vet on the morning of a race.
The filly's victory surprised connections, and her trainer admitted to being in "a cold sweat" for the next three weeks, fearingofficial notification that the drug had been found in her post-race sample. However, he has not been contacted by the BHA in relation to the test.
"It was very worrying, but it appears no evidence of the drug was found, much to my relief," said the trainer.
Although the Moonlit Path inquiry was the first positive test for TA in British racing, Professor Tim Morris, BHA director of equine science and welfare, on Sunday reiterated that he has full confidence in the testing process, despite the unnamed trainer's claim to have got away with using the drug.
He said: "The problem is it's a bit like the comment, ‘are you going to look at other yards where this might have been given?' Without the full facts it is pure speculation.
"All I can say is that forget the UK, this drug has been used in other jurisdictions, it's been tested positive for in other jurisdictions, and we haven't changed our testing regime.
"I'm confident in our testing procedure because it has found a case of TA, and if a trainer were to give the drug on raceday they would be taking a lot of risk.
"We have already saidthat we don't believe the use of TA to be widespread, but that isn't to say there isn't individual horse variation, which is why, in our advice, we give people a detection time, then tell the vet to add on a safety factor for the withdrawal time."
Trainer Jim Boyle, a qualified vet, said: "I'd never heard of TA until this case blew up. But that is not to say it wasn't being used.
"You would imagine the fact I had never heard of it being used isindicative it is not widespread. Then again, how much would people talk if there was a slight possibility that something they were using was close to the bone?"
Paul Struthers: defended BHA
Henderson's punishment was markedly different to the recommended guidelines for a breach of rule 200, which covers any attempt to use a prohibited substance to affect a horse's performance.
The recommended entry point is a £2,500 fine or one-year disqualification, and £12,000 was the maximum fine.
Struthers said: "There is no facility [to appeal]. It has been discussed before, in the light of a previous decision that there was a general feeling of incredulity about, but it was felt it would be inappropriate for us to be able to appeal the decision of our own panel when we have set it up to be independent.
"Even if there had been a facility to appeal, I don't think we would have been minded to in this case."
He added: "The disciplinary panel are given guideline penalties, but they are perfectly entitled to go outside those guidelines if they see fit.
"In this instance, they felt obviously because of the substance itself, and because of the mitigating factors that they explain in their judgement, that a disqualification, which was one option under that penalty, was disproportionately high, but that the maximum fine of £12,000 was, equally, disproportionate at the other end of the spectrum."
The wife of Henderson's vet James Main, trainer Helen Main, is understood to be preparing a statement clarifying his role in the affair.
Listen to James Willoughby's analysis of the Nicky Henderson case on RPTV at racingpost.com
