News from the European Mediterranean Horseracing Federation 2019 General Assembly

News from the European Mediteranean Horseracing Federation 2019 General Assembly To many, Norway is the land of the midnight sun or that of the Northern Lights. But to the race-fan, these meteorological mysteries are incidental—Norway is, first and …

By Paull Khan, PhD.

To many, Norway is the land of the midnight sun or that of the Northern Lights. But to the race-fan, these meteorological mysteries are incidental—Norway is, first and foremost, home to that enigma, the Whip-less Race.

This year, the EMHF’s General Assembly ‘roadshow’ returned to Scandinavia, where the Norwegian Jockey Club hosted our meeting at the country’s sole thoroughbred racetrack, Ovrevoll, after which delegates were privileged to experience the joyous and colourful processions of Norway’s Constitution Day and also witness firsthand the running of a full card without crops—of which more later.

Our meeting broke fresh ground in a number of ways. For the first time, the press was represented, and a number of commercial enterprises (Flair - manufacturers of Nasal Strips, RASLAB - international distributors of racing data and rights, and Equine Medirecord, who supply veterinary compliance software) joined the social programme and mingled with the administrators. The number of presentations was also increased, from which it was made apparent to everyone, if we did not know it before, that the range of threats we face as a sport is diverse indeed. 

Illegal Betting

Amongst these threats is one which to date has had far greater impact in Asia, but whose tentacles are increasingly taking Europe into their grasp. The enemy is illegal betting, on which Brant Dunshea, Chief Regulatory Officer of British Horseracing Authority, gave a presentation. Recently co-opted to bring a European perspective to a task-force set up by the EMHF’s equivalent in Asia—the Asian Racing Federation—Dunshea was shocked at the sheer size of the problem.

Defining ‘illegal betting’ as including betting which takes place in an unregulated environment, (e.g., an off-shore operation which was contributing nothing to the sport and was under the regulatory control of neither government nor racing authority), he presented figures which showed that illegal betting in six Asian countries—predominantly using the betting exchange model—was vast in scale; was increasing faster than its legal equivalent; was funding criminal activities including through money laundering; attracted disproportionately higher rates of problem gambling; was poorly understood by governments and racing authorities and was presenting new challenges for regulators in relation to dealing with race corruption. A decrease in the number of suspicious betting investigations on British betting exchanges had been experienced. It now seemed likely that some of this activity had simply shifted to the illegal and unregulated markets.

This is an issue that Europe cannot afford to ignore. The British Horseracing Authority has committed to replicate the Asian research which will seek to quantify the scale of betting on British racing across illegal and unregulated platforms; and Dunshea took the opportunity to seek other volunteers from other EMHF countries to join in this effort. The task-force aims to produce a plan of best practice to identify and tackle this problem for the use of racing authorities.

Liv Kristiansen, Racing Director of the Norwegian Jockey Club, has been elected to the EMHF's Executive Council.

Liv Kristiansen, Racing Director of the Norwegian Jockey Club, has been elected to the EMHF's Executive Council.

Dunshea pointed to the salutary conclusion that increasing regulation and taxation of the legal market was not necessarily the answer to the problem and risked the unintended consequence of causing punters to migrate to illegal markets, with their lower margins and (for many countries) a wider and more attractive range of available betting options. Key in the battle will be to engage governments in this discussion, ensure their understanding of the scale of the problem and the interconnectivity between policies in regard to legal betting and the propensity to bet through illegal channels, and try to find a balanced tax burden, alongside sufficient laws and law enforcement effort, to snuff out this noxious menace.

Gene Doping

Gene doping is no longer something from the realms of science fiction but is practiced today. Simon Cooper, co-chair of the European and African Stud Book Committee explained: “DNA can be inserted, substituted, deleted any number of ways—a bit like cut-and-paste on your computer. Gene editing kits can be bought on the internet”. He gave a salutary example of its potential effects. “Mice normally will run for about 800 metres before they’ve had enough. After some mice were injected, in an experiment in Australia, with the stamina protein PEPCK, and genetically manipulated, they ran six kilometres”. The potential to inflict great damage on the sport of horseracing is obvious, and we should be grateful that the state of vigilance among the international racing and breeding authorities is high, with excellent work particularly being carried out in Japan as well as Australia. There is no evidence of nefarious gene doping of racehorses to date—and indeed no belief that it has—but part of the problem is that we cannot say unequivocally that it has not happened, because there is as yet no test to determine whether or not a horse has been subjected to this technique. This is the main focus of research, which will, if and once successful, be made available to Stud Books, as gatekeepers of the breed and racing authorities around the world. “Once DNA is changed, those changes are passed on”, added Cooper, so the more time that passes before detection, the greater the problem. Prevention, rather than retrospective identification, must therefore be the aim. It is believed that the most likely point at which genetic engineering would be carried out on a horse would be between conception and birth. A takeaway message from Cooper was that the racing world should shout loudly and clearly that its authorities have anticipated, and are prepared for, gene doping. Making those who would seek to cheat aware of this fact should, in and of itself, dissuade them from so doing and thereby reduce the risks of this nightmare ever becoming a reality. 

Jockeys’ Mental Health…

TO READ MORE —

BUY THIS ISSUE IN PRINT OR DOWNLOAD

July - September 2019, issue 66 (PRINT)
£8.95
Quantity:
Add to Cart

WHY NOT SUBSCRIBE?

DON'T MISS OUT AND SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE NEXT FOUR ISSUES!

The FEI prohibited list and what it means for racing

The eighth World Equestrian Games in Tryon, North Carolina were not, it is perhaps fair to say, an unbridled success. From unfinished facilities to misspelt signage and, most catastrophically, an entire endurance race that had to be aborted after ri…

By Alysen Miller

The eighth World Equestrian Games in Tryon, North Carolina were not, it is perhaps fair to say, an unbridled success. From unfinished facilities to misspelt signage and, most catastrophically, an entire endurance race that had to be aborted after riders were sent in the wrong direction, the competition generated so much negative coverage that the future of the Games themselves, already in some doubt, now appears to be hanging by a thread (At the time of writing, no formal bidders had thrown their hats into the ring for the 2022 renewal). So it might seem to be a strange time to ask if horseracing has anything to learn from the Fédération Équestre International (FEI). And yet, there is one area in which the FEI is arguably setting an example.

Unlike the global racing industry, which operates under myriad rules and regulations between different countries (and sometimes within the same country), all 134 affiliated nations of the FEI operate under a single set of rules. This includes a single Prohibited Substances Policy to which all jurisdictions must adhere; meaning that a horse trained in Australia is subject to exactly the same medical requirements, including regulations governing banned substances and threshold limits, as a horse trained in, say, America. This stands in stark contrast to the thoroughbred industry. Despite being an increasingly global game, from the now-traditional annual American invasion of Royal Ascot to the recent domination of the Melbourne Cup by European-trained horses, racing can appear positively parochial when it comes to its attitudes towards prohibited substances. “If you compare horseracing to other sports, we have one of the sole sports where there are no equal regulations on the highest level,” elucidates Germany’s Peter Schiergen. “To have [the same] regulations and policies around the world would be a good action for horse racing.”

So what are the factors standing in the way of global harmonisation, and would there ever be a case for following the FEI’s lead and adopting a single set of rules that would apply to horseracing authorities the world over?

Laboratory sample analysis

The FEI’s approach is to divide prohibited substances into two categories: banned substances (that is, substances that are deemed by the FEI to have no legitimate use in competition and/or have a high potential for abuse, including all anabolic steroids and their esters), which are not permitted at any time; and controlled medication (substances that are deemed to have a therapeutic value and/or are commonly used in equine medicine), which are not permitted for use during competition but may be used at other times. These categorisations apply to all national and international competitions, with each national federation being subject to the FEI’s regulations. Testing at competitions is carried out by the FEI’s own veterinary department, while elective out-of-competition testing is also available so that those responsible for the horse can ensure that they allow the appropriate withdrawal times for therapeutic medications. So just how effective are these rules at keeping prohibited substances out of the sport and ensuring a level playing field? Clearly, no system is perfect. The FEI has had its fair share of doping scandals, particularly in the endurance discipline, where stamina, which can be easily enhanced with the aid of pharmacology, is of paramount importance. The FEI, who declined to be interviewed for this article, said in a statement: “Clean sport is an absolute must for the FEI and it is clear that we, like all International Federations, need to continue to work to get the message across that clean sport and a level playing field are non-negotiable. All athletes and National Federations know that regardless of where in the world they compete the rules are the same.” Yet having a global policy does appear to offer a strategic advantage to those seeking to create a level playing field, not only through the creation of economies of scale (the FEI oversees laboratories around the world, and all results are all handled at the federation’s headquarters in Lausanne), but also by creating a framework for cheats to be exiled from all competitions, rather than just one country’s.

While harmonisation and cross-border cooperation does exist in racing, particularly within Europe and individual race meetings—notably the recent Breeders’ Cup—have taken it upon themselves to enact their own programme of pre- and post-race testing, effectively creating their own anti-doping ecosystem; the fact remains that racing lacks an overarching prohibited substances policy. Codes and customs vary widely from—at one end of the spectrum—Germany, which does not allow any colt that has run on declared medication to stand at stud; to North America, where, Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown, whose trainer admitted that he gave the colt a monthly dose of the anabolic steroid, stanozolol, is still active at stud. Stanozolol is the same drug that the Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson tested positive for in 1988, causing him to be stripped of his gold medal in the Seoul Olympics. Although the industry subsequently moved to outlaw the drug for use on horses in training, anabolic steroids are still routinely used as an out-of-competition treatment in a number of states.

“I don’t think the playing field is level,” says Mark Johnston, with typical candour. “Control of anabolic steroids is very important if you want a level playing field. Because there’s no doubt whatsoever that there are advantages to using them.”


TO READ MORE —

BUY THIS ISSUE IN PRINT OR DOWNLOAD

January - March 2019, issue 64 (PRINT)
£8.95
Quantity:
Add to Cart

WHY NOT SUBSCRIBE?

DON'T MISS OUT AND SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE NEXT FOUR ISSUES!