Op/Ed Feedback: W. Craig Robertson III

For the past year, I have had the honor of representing Graham Motion before the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (“KHRC”) with regard to the alleged finding of 2.9 nanograms of Methocarbamol–a lawful, therapeutic medication–in Kitten's Point's serum after her race in the Bewitch Stakes on April 24, 2015. Two days ago, following a hearing in which Graham was denied to right to present substantial evidence in his defense, the KHRC ruled that Motion was in violation of Kentucky's threshold for Methocarbamol and ordered that he pay a $500 fine.

While I have been deeply troubled by numerous issues associated with the KHRC's prosecution of this case, I feel compelled to respond to the op-ed piece written by Dr. Dionne Benson, Executive Director of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (“RMTC”) on October 5, 2016. Specifically, Dr. Benson boldly proclaims that “all existing published scientific research supports the current RMTC recommended threshold for methocarbamol.” This is simply not true.

The biggest problem with the case brought against Motion (and there are many) is that the RMTC recommended threshold for Methocarbamol–which Kentucky adopted–directly contradicts the science on the subject. The current RMTC and KHRC threshold for Methocarbamol is 1.0 nanograms. This means that, while the use of Methocarbamol is allowable in Kentucky, it cannot be present in a horse's system above the level of 1.0 nanograms during a race. Setting aside the fact that I question why any racing commission would choose to regulate a benign substance like Methocarbamol at the nanogram level – which is a billionth of a gram and it being undisputed that there would be zero pharmacological effect on a horse at such a small concentration – the greater problem is this: the 1.0 nanogram threshold has no scientific basis.

A history lesson on the RMTC is important at this point. The RMTC is an entity that was formed a little over a decade ago for the self-declared purpose of making recommendations to states concerning medication rules in horse racing. To that end, the RMTC formed a Scientific Advisory Committee (“SAC”), which consisted of a number of researchers, veterinarians and scientists, to conduct studies on medications and recommend regulatory thresholds. The goal was to establish uniform medication rules based on science that had been subjected to “peer review and publication.”

In 2009, there was little, if any, research on Methocarbamol. The SAC was engaged to conduct a study to examine the effects of Methocarbamol on horses. Following the completion of their study, the entire SAC unequivocally recommended that the regulatory threshold for Methocarbamol be set at 20 nanograms. Shockingly, with no explanation or basis, the RMTC rejected the proposal of its own retained scientists, and instead arbitrarily adopted a 1.0 nanogram threshold. How do we know this? We subpoenaed the internal records of the RMTC since it directs its scientists to maintain confidentiality. Now we know why.

So, in sum, the RMTC adopted a threshold for Methocarbamol that directly contradicts what its own Scientific Advisory Committee recommended. Had the RMTC simply followed the advice of its own scientists, we would not be where we are today.

Let me be clear: I am not fundamentally opposed to the RMTC and the national coordination of medication regulations. In fact, I think it is a noble idea. But if your stated goal is to study medications and recommend fair rules, you need to do it properly. Ignoring the work of your own scientists utterly fails in that regard. The RMTC has great power based upon the fact that several states, like Kentucky, follow many of its recommendations. With great power comes great responsibility. For anyone associated with the RMTC to publicly proclaim that its Methocarbamol threshold is scientifically based is flat out wrong.

Graham Motion is as fine a horseman as you will ever meet. More importantly, he is an even better person. The original sanction handed down by the KHRC in this case was a $500 fine and a five day suspension. The easiest thing for Graham to have done would have been to accept the modest punishment and move on. The emotional and financial toll of litigation, even when you are right, is great. However, Graham stood up not only for himself, but for horsemen everywhere, and I commend him for it. The RMTC should similarly do the right thing by moving beyond its self-serving statements and get to work on fixing its thresholds so that they comport with science. It can start with Methocarbamol.

–W. Craig Robertson III