STEWARDS’ TESTING PROCEDURES UNDER FIRE

By Graham Potter | Friday, October 16, 2009

The activities of Queensland Racing Stewards with regard to the testing of work-riders at Eagle Farm and Doomben on Monday has had a sequel with Premiership winning trainer Robert Heathcote slamming procedures which he says humiliated his staff.

Heathcote outlined his concerns in a letter to Jamie Orchard, Director of Integrity Operations at Queenland Racing. Orchard replied to Heathcote, giving a detailed response to the questions raised. This give and take of information and the opposing views that this procedure has brought bubbling to the surface is best represented by the arguments put forward in the letters themselves and they are thus reproduced here in their entirety with the permission of the two parties concerned.

This is the two sides of the story.

The letter from Robert Heathcote to Jamie Orchard reads:

Good morning Mr Orchard,

I wish to make comment on the track-work rider swabbing procedure which occurred at Eagle Farm and Doomben on Monday. Several of my staff have complained to me about the way the procedure is actually carried out.

Having an adult person having to urinate into a bottle in front of another person and in full view is not only embarrassing for many as commented to me by my staff and others including International riders who were downright disgusted by this procedure. And I'm quite sure it may well be an invasion of privacy laws.

Whilst I understand the reasons why you have to take these tests to ensure the safety of all riders, in today's society there are other means of actually carrying out these tests. For example, there are road side testing procedures carried out by the Police to detect the presence of drugs. Can this test not be used instead?

Perhaps having a qualified person to actually search a person prior to giving a urine sample so it can be done in the privacy of a cubicle. This would surely alleviate the possibility of a sample being supplied fraudulently as does the temperature device used on the sample bottles now.

The main issue is solely the degrading way in which these tests were carried out. I would think that this has to be reviewed for future cases. I would hate to think how the staff at Queensland racing offices would feel having to carry out the same tests, especially the female staff members.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours Sincerely,
Robert Heathcote.
14/10/2009 (5.09am).


Jamie Orchard replied to Robert Heathcote on the same day he received the letter of concern. Orchard’s letter reads:

Robert,

Thank you for your email.

We seek to balance the privacy of the person providing a sample with the need for integrity of the process. You might note in this regard that we are increasingly challenged in respect of the integrity of our testing programs as individuals are seeking to challenge each stage of the process. Very recently a rider questioned whether urine was his and despite the stringent process we had adopted and the Tribunal gave him the benefit of the doubt and upheld his appeal.

So we have little choice but to have strict measures in place.

In determining the appropriate approach, we have reference to the Australian and New Zealand Standard 4308, the World Anti-Doping Code and the process adopted by the Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority (ASADA).

The Standard provides for 'observed collection' when there is an unacceptable risk to the integrity of the sample and the World Code provides for the subject to be observed providing the sample by someone of the same gender. ASADA requires the following:

Urine sample collection process:

1. Athletes will be asked to select a beaker for urine collection and check that it is suitable and is not damaged or appears to have been tampered with.
2. Athletes will provide a urine sample in the presence of a chaperone who is the same gender as the athlete.
3. The chaperone will directly witness the provision of the urine sample from the athlete's body into the beaker. In order for this to occur the athlete must comply with the chaperone's instructions.
4. Athletes are responsible for controlling their sample until it is sealed in a sample collection kit.
5. If an athlete provides an insufficient sample (that is less than the required volume) he or she is required to provide further sample(s) in accordance with the procedures outlined above.

You will see from both of these bodies that direct observation is expected. That is the standard that we adopt and the standard which I understand to be adopted by racing authorities in other states.

We nonetheless seek to protect privacy by having only one person at a time providing a sample and
ensuring that the only other person present is the QRL chaperone and that the chaperone is of the same gender.

I am satisfied that in accordance with the authoritative standard and codes, we provide as much privacy as possible without affecting the integrity of the sample.

You are correct in assuming that QRL staff don't enjoy having to witness urine collection but unfortunately it is necessary to ensure the integrity of the process. It would certainly be preferable to allow a greater degree of privacy for those providing the samples but unfortunately there have been a number of instances where to do so would have seen the sample not being correctly provided.

We have considered the possibility of conducting searches first and then allowing privacy however such a search would have to be very thorough (in light of methods that have been used to provide
false tests in the past) and would involve a much greater invasion of privacy that a direct observation, given that the QRL official would have to run their hands over every part of the person's body capable of hiding a 'clean sample'.

The temperature of each sample is tested and that might go some way toward ensuring the integrity of the sample however recently we have found an attempt to avoid that by storing 'clean' urine in a condom and seeking to elevate its temperature by having the subject keep it in their armpit until it was provided - so temperature is not a sufficient test in itself.

Similarly, we have researched the possibility of using saliva testing kits (similar to police roadside tests) and took advice from the police in this regard. However such tests do not appear to be sufficiently accurate to rely upon. In particular, I note that such screening processes will not
test for all of those substances which are prohibited by the Rules of Racing. We did consider the 'split cup' screening process but that would not alleviate the concern you have raised.

So in summary, the process we have adopted is one which balances integrity and privacy and which meets the expectations of the relevant standard and anti-doping codes.

Unfortunately, we are not able relax the standards without significantly affecting the integrity of the process.

Regards,
Jamie Orchard.
Director of Integrity Operations.
14/10/2009 (1.57pm).

In a follow-up conversation with HRO, Jamie Orchard said he was sympathetic with the concerns that had been expressed about the collection procedure, but he reiterated that the stance that needed to be taken to ensure the integrity of the process had to be a stringent one by the very nature of the exercise.

Orchard also pointed out that, apart from Heathcote’s letter of concern, Queensland Racing had received no complaints about the testing procedures undertaken on Monday.

After the exchange of the above correspondence, Heathcote, for his part, was still not a happy man.

Robert Heathcote: “If Queensland Racing had said, yes there are some areas they may look at, it would be a non-issue. I am not doing this because I want my name in print, but I’ve got an obligation to do what’s right by my staff.

“The work-riders are not riding for gold medals and where does it leave my business if next time some of my staff say, they are not doing it ... they are not going to go through that again, they would rather get out of the industry then endure that sort of humiliation.

“The urine had to be given in the direct view of the person observing. The stewards were adamant they had to see the urine pass into the container. You can’t get more personal than that ... and this procedure is carried out by Queensland Racing Stewards on licences who they see at work on a regular basis. It’s caused a fair bit of anxiety with track-work riders. It should, in my opinion, be carried out, at the very least, by qualified, independent, medical personnel ... you know, people aside from those in the industry. It is bad enough to be asked to do that with a stranger. To be asked to do that with someone you work with everyday is even worse.

“There was some pretty irate track-work riders ... irate is not the word, distressed is more like it. They were distressed at having to go through this process. I believe that common-sense should take place. They saying that to do a full body-search is more invasive than showing your genitals to some-one while you urinate.

“Get serious !

“I mean go into the room there, take off your shirt and your pants and stand there in your underwear and hold your hands up. OK, you’re fine. Go in the cubicle and give your urine sample. That is far more decent than what they had to go through.

“We’ve got people who have been in the industry for years and now, because of the happenings of one or two individuals, all of a sudden, everybody in this industry has got to be subjected to this kind of thing.

“Look, I fully understand where Queensland Racing is coming from and I fully support them in what they are trying to achieve. All I’m saying is there has got to be a better way of going about it.”

Offer feedback on this story: editor@horseracingonly.com.au

More articles