Until a few days ago, I didn’t know much about Total Carbon Dioxide (TCO2) and why it was anathema to racing commissions. So, if you haven’t had the time to research TCO2, let me help.
TCO2 is measured in something called millimoles per liter, expressed as mml/l or mmol/l. Here’s what wikipedia says about moles.
Mole is a unit of measurement used in chemistry to express amounts of a chemical substance, defined as the amount of any substance that contains as many elementary entities (e.g., atoms, molecules, ions, electrons) as there are atoms in 12 grams of pure carbon-12 (12C), the isotope of carbon with relative atomic mass of exactly 12 by definition. This corresponds to the Avogadro constant, which has a value of 6.02214129(27)×1023 elementary entities of the substance. It is one of the base units in the International System of Units; it has the unit symbol mol and corresponds with the dimension symbol N.[1] In honour of the unit, some chemists celebrate October 23 (a reference to the 1023 part of the Avogadro constant) as “Mole Day”.
Let me come clean and say I actually took (and passed) organic and inorganic chemistry in college, but if I ever knew what a mole was I’ve long since forgotten. And the definition above was pretty much lost on me. I’m still more than a little fuzzy on what a mole is. However, I do know a millimole is a thousandth of a mole. Most special is that next Thursday is mole day and I hope you all celebrate appropriately.
The widely used horseracing industry standard is 37 mmol/l of TCO2. As best as I can tell, the standard was set based on testing that showed the natural level of 99+% of horses was going to be below 37 mmol/l, even after the horse has been treated with Lasix. In a natural habitat, TCO2 should be between 26 and 32 mmol/l. When horses are fed with commercially collected grasses and grains (hay, oats, etc.) and are given electrolytes and pellets that may have additional elements, the TCO2 level will move upward to 33 mmol/l or so. In fact, based on testing, “natural” levels of race horses are rarely going to be above about 35 mmol/l, even if they have been treated with Lasix. The CHRB cites that prior to adoption of a standard of 37mmol/l up to 20% of races horses tested above that level, but after adoption of that standard the percentage was essentially 0. They clearly state over and over, a level above 37mmol/l has to be the result of something the trainer did (e.g., feed) or didn’t do (e.g., not giving the horse water).
The critical question is whether an elevated TCO2 level is in fact performance enhancing. In the decision by the CHRB, they say
“The theory is that by raising the TCO2 level, you can reduce the build-up of lactic acid that occurs during a race. In essence the build-up of lactic acid that causes muscle fatigue is neutralized and performance is enhanced. Whether performance is actually enhanced is the subject of debate, with the Board taking the position that elevated TCO2 is a performance enhancer and O’Neill arguing that this proposition is unproven.”
So what we know are two things:
- that 37 mmol/l does not seem to occur naturally, even in racehorses, and
- it may or may not have a performance enhancing effect.
Let me give you two quotes from the Australian Harness Racing Council report presented in 2000:
“A horse that is scientifically trained or well-trained cannot be improved very much by the administration of alkinizing agents.”
When they refer to alkinizing agents, they mean “MILKSHAKES.” The report goes on to say
“In North American tests in 1996 it was found that some horses performed worse when administered with a buffering substance or an alkinizing agent.”
The CHRB cites testimony from Dr. Rick Arthur, the CHRB Equine Medical Director, and Dr. Scott Stanley, a PhD toxicologist from the U C Davis laboratory that did the testing, that indicated TCO2 levels above the 37.0 mmol/l could result in an improved effort. Their testimony solidified the CHRB opinion that elevated TCO2 is a performance enhancer.
What we’re not completely sure about is, even if elevated TCO2 is present, at what level does real performance enhancement occur? 37.1mmol/l? 40mmol/l? 50mmol/l? Remember, the standard wasn’t set based on knowing the level at which performance enhancement is sure to occur. It’s based on a level that a race horse should never exceed, even allowing for Lasix, food, or other medications, with a presumption that 37mmol/l is, in fact, performance enhancing.
The Michigan Office of Racing Commissioner uses something called a Radiometer to test horses pre-race, and they clearly state
“Although there are a variety of factors that can lead to elevated TCO2 levels in a horse, the Radiometer can only test for the level of TCO2, not for “baking soda” or whatever other factors may have caused an elevated level. For that reason, a TCO2 “overage” does not necessarily imply that a trainer has “milkshaked” a particular horse, but simply that the horse tested had an elevated level of TCO2 in its system at the point in time when it was tested.”
In order to tell if a horse has been milkshaked, the testing lab must look for elevated levels of sodium and chloride. In the case of Argenta, the CHRB found normal levels of both sodium and chloride and concluded
“We adopt these facts and opinions [regarding sodium and chloride levels] and hold that the filly Argenta was not milkshaked with a NaHCO3 solution prior to the August 25, 2010 race at Del Mar.”
It all gets subtle at this point. We have a theory of performance enhancement and some level of disagreement whether that is generally occurring. But the critical point is that a rule is a rule, and even if you think it is a stupid or even unconstitutional rule, if a trainer breaks the rule he can be found guilty. The CHRB made this clear in their decision
We find that the filly, Argenta, trained by Doug O’Neill, ran in the 6th race at Del Mar Racetrack on August 25, 2010 with an excessive amount of TCO2 in her system (39.4 mm/l). Nothing further is necessary to establish a prima facie case under rules 1843.6 and 1887. Therefore the burden has now shifted to Respondent to prove his Due Process Defense by a preponderance of the evidence.”
In less formal language O’Neill was DOA unless he could prove he either didn’t have anything to do with causing the elevated TCO2 level, or the testing was bogus. Since O’Neill didn’t contest the testing, it came down to proving he was denied due process.
The beginning of the case was really about milkshaking, and O’Neill was sure the horse hadn’t been milkshaked This gave him a strong motivation to protest his innocence. However, it became clear that even if the horse wasn’t milkshaked (English is a great for turning nouns into verbs) the TCO2 level was going to be enough to find him in violation. Fighting the CHRB on due process grounds was always going to be an uphill struggle.
“The Attorney General has pointed out that the present standard for evaluating a due process challenge is the “rational basis test.” A law is Constitutional if it is rationally related to a proper legislative goal…Respondent agrees that a law must be found to be irrational before it may be found to be Unconstitutional. Furthermore the law will be upheld even if it is unwise and results in some inequality. Those challenging the constitutionality of a law must carry the heavy burden of negating every conceivable basis which might support the law even if not found in the record.”
The chances of O’Neill winning the case were clearly slim. O’Neill argued that the Board failing to account for the Lasix Bump (described in more detail below) and failing to provide a TCO2 quarantine barn made 1843.6 irrational on its face. The CHRB ultimately rejected this argument.
Let’s talk about the factors that can lead to elevated TCO2 testing.
Lasix: It is well known that the diuretic Lasix can impact TCO2 levels, and trainers should adjust the dosage to ensure the so called “Lasix bump” does not occur. The Lasix bump was one of the arguments Doug O’Neill used in the case of Argenta. In their decision the CHRB said
“Some jurisdictions impose a two-tier system where the few non-Lasix horses are limited to 37.0 mm/l [sic] and Lasix horses are allowed up to 39.0 mm/l [sic] of TCO2. The Board has chosen not to adopt this two tier system.
In other words, Lasix indisputably bumps TCO2, but in the opinion of the CHRB the standard of 37 mmol/l is sufficient to take that into account.
We know Doug O’Neill’s vet, Dr. Joseph Dowd, administered a 10cc shot of Lasix approximately 40 minutes before the race. 10cc is the maximum legal amount a horse may be given before a race. Nobody contends any of this, but what is interesting is the CHRB language characterizing the injection of Lasix.
“We find that it was at O’Neill’s instruction that Argenta was given the 10cc shot of Lasix…”
I’m not sure the CHRB meant this, but a literal reading of the sentence was that O’Neill not only ordered the shot, he specified the dosage. O’Neills story is that he trusts his vet to properly administer medications, including Lasix, and in this case the vet apparently saw no problem with administering that dosage of Lasix, something he had done hundreds of times. There was no testimony that Dr. Dowd was forced to inject the horse, merely asked to administer it based on normal and legal pre-race medication procedures. The clear conclusion by the CHRB was that if there was a Lasix bump, O’Neill was in full control of Argenta’s medication and was thereby responsible.
Dehydration: Dehydration may lead to metabolic alkalosis, which in turn can result in an elevated TCO2 level. In the case of Argenta, she was vanned over from Hollywood Park on what the CHRB called an “extremely hot day.” Race day was also very hot. There was not specific evidence that dehydration caused the high level of TCO2, but it made no difference. O’Neill was in control of the horse, its transportation and its watering and that was enough to put the blame on him for the elevated TCO2 level.
Supplements: Any supplement can alter the blood chemistry of a horse, primarily those containing bicarbonate, citrate and acetate.
Medications: Buffers, antacids and anti-ulcer medications can raise TCO2 levels. There did not seem to be any testimony related to medications other than Lasix.
Feed: Diets that have a high carbon anion balance, for example alfalfa and soybean meal, can cause elevated TCO2. Once again, no one argued that the elevated level in Argenta was due to feed, but even if they did, it made no difference. O’Neill was in charge of the horse’s diet and if that was the cause it was O’Neill’s fault.
Electrolytes and Salt: It was a hot day. If you are exercising on a hot day, you lose electrolytes, and you drink beverages that would replace them, Gatorade for example. Again, it doesn’t matter with regard to a violation – if giving a horse Gatorade raises its TCO2 level, the trainer is in violation even if he did it out of caring for the horse.
We can debate the need for TCO2 rules in light of research that says it may or may not improve the performance of a race horse. It would be a stretch to consider the CHRB ruling as definitive of anything more than they adopted the rule, they found the rule necessary, and Doug O’Neill violated the rule. The CHRB stated
“We rejected Respondent’s well-argued due process defense primarily because of the overwhelming evidence that California trainers in general and Mr. O’Neill in particular have learned various ways to manipulate TCO2 scores without serving milkshakes.”
So according to the CHRB, trainers are purposely looking to elevate TCO2 levels. But then they go on to say
“We still cannot say it was done here intentionally. Frankly Argenta was a very poor candidate for TCO2 manipulation. According to Dr. Arthur and Dr. Stanley, the prime subject for raising TCO2 levels is a male horse running in quality races and finishing in the money. In other words the polar opposite of Argenta. She was a Filly running in the cheapest claiming races and falling so far back “she would need to sprout wings” to catch the leaders.”
At least it looks like someone at the CHRB has heard Trevor Denman call a race.
So which is it? O’Neill thought he would outsmart the CHRB or he was just flying too close to the sun without meaning to do that? The CHRB was basically saying, if a trainer is going to raise TCO2 levels he’s going to do it on a horse that already had a good chance of winning in the hope he’ll get the horse over the top.
The CHRB concluded O’Neill didn’t appear to intentionally try to elevate Argenta’s TCO2 levels. While it may have been puzzling O’Neill chose Argenta for elevated TCO2 levels, the only motive the CHRB speculated on was his own stubbornness. They said
“Perhaps it was his failure to heed Dr. Arthur’s warning that his training methods were leaving him too few standard deviations to the maximum allowed TCO2 line.”
The CHRB assured themselves they were making the right decision by noting Argenta’s TCO2 levels dropped to 29.75 mmol/l after O’Neill was notified about the violation. Such a dramatic shift had to mean O’Neill was looking to elevate TCO2 levels, even without milkshaking.
There is a continuum that can be applied to all trainers that they fall somewhere between those who constantly push the envelope by looking for an advantage and those who are conservative to a fault. There are those who are operating with full knowledge about how their actions will affect racehorse performance. There are also those who are frankly not paying as close attention as they should. Say what you will about Doug O’Neill, but any conclusion about where he falls is going to have some speculation in there.