The Equine Biological Passport: Has Its Time Come?

by T.D. Thornton

The concept of an equine biological passport (EBP) is not new. 

But the tone and urgency of its discussion among veterinary and regulatory authorities changed this week in the wake of the cobalt scandal in Australia, where news reports characterized Racing New South Wales officials as “scrambling” to introduce EBPs as a means to curtail doping. 

Scientists all across the planet know there is nothing like a crisis to fuel awareness in paradigm-shifting health projects. Sometimes sudden, intense focus is enough to spur an outpouring of funding that helps turn complicated concepts into reality. 

Will that be the case with the global racing industry and EBPs? 

Here in the United States, there is some consensus among those familiar with the EBP movement that it is not a lack of technology, but a lack of money and the fragmented, multi-jurisdictional nature of the sport that is keeping EBPs from being implemented. 

Yet at the same time, those hurdles are not stopping some researchers and governing agencies from trying to advance the core ideas behind EBPs. 

In its most simplified explanation, an EBP represents a means of tracking biological changes in horses over time (don't think of the “passport” in terms of a traditional paper travel document). 

Based on the model for human athletes introduced by the World Anti-Doping Agency in 2009, repeated blood samplings are the backbone of biological passports. Biomarkers in blood can be used, among other things, to indirectly detect the body's reactions to performance enhancers as an alternative to after-the-fact testing for banned substances. 

“This is the future,” said Dr. David Nash, a Lexington, Kentucky, veterinarian who previously served as executive director of the industry-funded Equine Drug Research Institute. “It's safe to say that if an equine biological passport system was implemented properly, we would have the ability to measure the overall health status of our equine athletes in addition to being able to screen if certain nefarious products have been administered. There are many wider benefits, and that's the reason we need to take a hard look at this.” 

Earlier this week, Nash told the TDN he is on the cusp of “a real opportunity in the near future to gain funding to be able to implement this concept in North America.” Nash detailed his plan, which combines elements of an EBP with other forms of out-of-competition testing, on the condition that specifics about its potential funding and institutional partners not be disclosed because he does not want to jeopardize the process. 

“I am actively looking at funding mechanisms to make this a reality,” Nash said. “If I can obtain the funding, I would like to create a stand-alone, not-for-profit entity that is free to collaborate broadly around the world with a multitude of people and organizations.” 

In addition to curtailing drug cheats, Nash said, “I would like to go a step further. I would like to find funding so that we can also measure pathogens, disease-causing agents, and other forms of contaminants.” 

Nash said he is fine with letting racing's performance-enhancing drug crisis be the driving force behind his efforts, so long as the result is that people come around to the idea of utilizing an EBP type of system to promote whole-horse health. 

“I just think the constant surveillance of our environment and the welfare of our animals is good medicine,” Nash said. “It's good business, it's money well invested, and it could pay off in great returns.” 

Arthur: EBPs an Important Tool 
Dr. Rick Arthur, equine medical director for the California Horse Racing Board, agreed that moving forward, EBPs “could be one of the most important tools in ferreting out nefarious activity.” 

Even though he doesn't think a full-blown EBP program will be in place in the U.S. any time soon, Arthur explained that it is important to recognize how similar, albeit smaller, steps already being taken to amass biological markers and compare them over time. 

“We already use a form of a biological passport for TCO2 testing in California,” Arthur said. “We have nearly a quarter-million TCO2 readings in our database. We can, and do, check trainer averages from time to time, and individual horse averages when indicated. We have used this information in TCO2 violation hearings and it is quite compelling. We are currently developing a database for cobalt readings in harness horses.” 

Arthur said in the strictest sense, out-of-competition testing and biomarker sampling are two separate entities. But they could dovetail to work stronger in unison. 

“Somebody has to be first to try [EBPs]. We are going to need them in the next five to ten years,” Arthur said. “Drug testing has become very god at identifying small molecules. We still have to develop methodologies and technologies for gene doping. We have to look at proteomics, which involves the control of the body's own physiology. Those are the things we're going to be looking at five or ten years from now. 

“I think it's certainly appropriate to develop the infrastructure for the biological passport,” Arthur continued. “But it's not going to be an easy thing to do. We have enough trouble effectively transferring medical examination records between jurisdictions today. The problem is the lack of infrastructure and regulatory cooperation to get anything useful done in this regard.” 

Matt Iuliano, executive vice president and executive director of the Jockey Club, said his organization has been working in conjunction with the Association of Racing Commissioners International over the past several years to develop national database of all veterinary treatments for all horses. 

“It is something that we're very interested in,” Iuliano said of EBPs. “When you take these three methods—post-race testing, out-of-competition testing and blood passports, they make a very powerful anti-doping arsenal.” 

During Nash's tenure at the EDRI, The Jockey Club facilitated a working relationship between EDRI and Dr. Don Catlin, a pioneer in human athlete drug detection at the University of California, Los Angeles. 

“Because of that, I got a rare glimpse inside one of the elite human drug testing labs that the Olympics use,” Nash said. “I wasn't going to squander the opportunity, so I learned as much as I could.” 

This was around the time that WADA was getting set to roll out its human athlete passport, which Nash said is comprised of three baseline components: A blood module, a steroid module, and an endocrine module. 

“So if suddenly your parameters start changing, we don't just look for the drug, but changes that drugs can leave even after the drug itself is cleared from body,” Nash said. 

Nash said he saw the potential for a passport system in horse racing, even though he knew the funding wouldn't be attainable before his three-year term was up at EDRI in 2008. 

He wasn't alone—other veterinarians and regulators also recognized the upside and began discussing EBPs at conferences worldwide around 2010. 

Where Nash stands out is in his desire to fuse drug eradication with overall equine health optimization. 

“We need to protect the health and the welfare of the horse,” Nash said. “That includes preventing it from getting sick due to an infectious disease and preventing it from being tampered with by any illicit medication. I see no distinction between the two. None.” 

EBPs and Funding. Where will the money come from? 
Nash said that when he heard the news out of Australia this week about fast-tracking the EBP, his first thought was that “the technology already exists” to do what Racing NSW wants to do. 

“I'm not saying that there aren't people out there” working toward the implementation of an EBP program, Nash said. “I'm saying that there is insufficient funding to do the work. That story needs to be told, too.” 

But despite across-the-board support of the concept, no one interviewed for this story would hazard a guess as to what it might cost to get an EBP program off the ground. It was also difficult get interviewees to commit for the record who should pay for it. 

“We have a shared problem that is global in nature,” Nash ventured. “We need a shared solution to solve this. Horse racing is a relatively small sport. We unfortunately do not have endless sources of money to solve problems. We need to use whatever funds are available in the most judicious manner possible to get the most benefit we possibly can.” 
Jim Gagliano, president and chief operating officer of The Jockey Club, said the sport should look to “investments within the industry” to fund any EBP project. 

“I don't know any of the specifics of Dr. Nash's proposal, but the funding for any new regulatory measures should probably come from the existing revenue streams and not a new tax and not from takeout,” Gagliano said. “EBPs should be something that the industry should seriously consider, but any initiatives to further tax takeout would not be well received.” 

Buried far beneath the debate about how EBPs should be implemented and who should pay for them is a potential seismic shift in how racing is addressing its illicit drug problems: Both EBPs and out-of-competition testing rely on the identification of problems before they occur as opposed to traditional post-race methods of screening for prohibited substances. 

And increasingly, racing jurisdictions are relying on “house rules” to place horses on vet's lists when pre-race screenings detect things like out-of-whack TCO2 levels or an overabundance of cobalt. 

“It may not be forensic information that would allow you to prosecute somebody, but it certainly would identify horses that had abnormalities that warranted further, in-depth investigation,” Arthur said of EBP-style monitoring. “It's a biological measurement that indicates a horse has been manipulated.” 

Nash said it can be a powerful deterrent just to let horsemen know ahead of time what are considered acceptable biomarker levels, and that if their horses fall outside those parameters, they will be denied entry in races. 

Nash gave the example of making it mandatory to have all horses pass a blood screening about four days prior to a race. If red flags are raised, a track can rely on broad commission rules concerning horse health to keep the animal from competing. 

“You tell horsemen the truth,” Nash said. “You say, 'Here are your results. Your horse is not healthy.' You don't have to prove why it's not healthy. You tell them, 'We're going to give you a free van ride to the veterinary clinic of your choice.'” 
And if horsemen threaten to sue over being denied entry? 

“Then we release the results,” Nash said. “Our job is to protect the horse, the rider and the public. What judge is going to say it is your constitutional or state right to run an animal whose hematocrit is ten times normal without an explanation? What judge is going to take that responsibility? The answer is nobody. 

“[Tracks] don't have the authority to take the purse away or to suspend a trainer's license,” Nash continued. “But they do have the option of ejecting them from the facility and barring them from entering their private property for any purpose at all. With that threat, if we do this the way I'm thinking, we're going to get full compliance.” 

Iuliano said Nash's plan has merit: “Rather than try to prosecute, you simply screen the horse out of competition. There's some work that needs to be done, but that's certainly in the sweet spot of what we find intriguing.” 

Nash said in an ideal world, all the time and money that is currently spent chasing drug cheats could eventually be better applied to whole-horse health. 

“We have to start working with each other. That is my advise to the horse industry and to my own profession,” Nash said. “We have to work with people we normally don't, because it is in our best interest to do so—for disease prevention, for regulatory prevention, and for the perception of the public that we actually care deeply about the welfare of equine athletes. Because I believe that most of us do care deeply. I really do.”