Washington's steroid standards for racehorses designed to level the playing field

Big Brown might be the best 3-year-old Thoroughbred racehorse in 30 years, but there's one test at Emerald Downs he might not pass — the one for anabolic steroids.

Rick Dutrow, Big Brown's trainer, says he gives the stallion a shot of Winstrol on the 15th of every month, though he says he didn't give him a shot in May. Still, if the winner of the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness were being tested at the track in Auburn after a race on Saturday, he might show a level of the man-made steroid above the one nanogram per milliliter of urine allowed under testing that started Sunday.

But the Belmont Stakes, the third and last race Big Brown needs to win to become the first Triple Crown winner since 1978, is run Saturday at Belmont Park in New York, where steroids are allowed in horse racing, as they are in Kentucky and Maryland, the other two Triple Crown states.

This year, the Washington Horse Racing Commission joined nine other states — out of the 38 that have regulated horse racing — in adopting uniform standards to protect horses and assure the betting public that racing had a level playing field. Most of the other states are in the process of doing so, with a target deadline of Jan. 1, 2009.

The standards allow for certain levels of four androgenic anabolic steroids. These levels are allowed either because the steroids occur naturally in horses or because they have therapeutic uses. No other steroids are permitted, and concentrations above the "no effect" thresholds set for the four named substances also subject trainers to penalties.

Eventually the penalties in Washington could include a fine up to $1,000, a 60-day suspension and loss of winnings. But for now, the commission is limiting those penalties on the four named steroids to a warning or up to a $100 fine.

"We're holding off on the $1,000 enforcement so that everyone can get comfortable about the rules. Everybody is learning at this time," said Robert Lopez, deputy secretary of the racing commission. But he said that if the state veterinarians found "blatant use," the stiffer penalties would be applied.

Lopez said steroids were among prohibited drugs before June 1 but that the testing used could only detect them in large amounts.

Under the new testing, "you will be identifying molecules" of a substance, said Bob Leichner, executive secretary of the racing commission. He compared it to taking a dollar bill from a person's wallet and testing it for cocaine or heroin. If a trace amount were found, should that person be charged with possession?

"We must be able to distinguish between levels that mean nothing and those at an abusive level," Leichner said.

The commission adopted the new standards in February, before Emerald Downs' April 18 opener, but agreed to limit the penalties and delay the new testing until Sunday.

Jack Hodge, Emerald Downs vice president, told commissioners he was concerned that the number of horses at Emerald Downs would be reduced because horses coming from out of state would end up elsewhere. He also said that had the testing started earlier, it would not have allowed enough time for treated horses to get below the approved levels.

"We didn't want therapeutically treated horses testing positive," Hodge said, adding that while he approved of the new testing, he had concerns about the science behind it.

MaryAnn O'Connell, executive director of the Washington Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, shares those concerns even as she says she's proud the state went ahead with the new rules.

"We're ahead of the science on this," she said, noting that, according to the state commission's data, it takes 45 days for steroids to clear a horse's system; there are other estimates ranging from 30 to 120 days.

There are even questions about whether the steroids enhance performance.

"There's nothing scientific that [says] these build muscles like they do in a person," said Sally Calkins, the state veterinarian who collects the blood and urine samples for testing at Emerald Downs.

So why use them?

"They are mainly used in a sick or debilitated horse, or maybe one that's offbeat, nervous or doesn't want to eat," Calkins said. "Many horses become more aggressive when they are on these hormones, so they might compete better — whether that's true or not, there's just no science at this point."

But she says she thinks there's also "a mind-set in racing — and that's what we're trying to get rid of — that the horse needs this to feel good and to compete."

Calkins, who is now paid by the state but worked for trainers at Spokane's Playfair track, said conditioners "try to keep the horse in the very best performance level possible."

She added, "If the horse isn't eating right, they say, 'Give him a shot. We need to get this horse on top of his game.' It's just part of trying to get the best athlete you can, and it's a tough rope to walk."

Anabolic steroid use in humans has been shown to contribute to several health problems, but the effect on horses is still a murky matter.

"There is no scientific evidence of long-term health problems in horses from standard horse-racing applications of anabolic steroids," said Scot Waterman, veterinarian and executive director of the Racing Mediation and Testing Consortium, the national group recommending adoption of steroid rules. "But of course there's the tagline that there's no evidence that it doesn't cause damage."

But there's no question that steroid use has an effect when horses head to the breeding shed. Mares that have been on steroids may not go regularly into heat. For males, steroids might affect semen production and fertility.

There's also the matter of public perception.

Rick Arthur, a veterinarian and the equine medical director for the California Horse Racing Board, might have summed that up best when quoted in an article in Washington Thoroughbred: "It's going to be very difficult to convince the public that baseball's Barry Bonds can't have these ... drugs, but these animals — that can't make such a decision — actually need them."

For Leichner, the Washington commission's secretary, the public's perception was a key reason for the new testing.

"We needed to step up the testing given the more sensitive screening that's available," he said. "We need to show that we're not just standing by."

Comments:sports@seattletimes.com