Re:Glen Kotzen Fined: O-Desmethyltramadol Postive

INQUIRY – TRAINER MR G KOTZEN

The National Horseracing Authority confirms that at an Inquiry held at its offices in Cape Town on 11 June 2019 which was concluded on 21 November 2020, Trainer Mr G Kotzen was charged with a contravention of Rule 73.2.4. The particulars being that he was the Trainer and the person responsible for HERODOTUS, which ran in and won the 6th race at Kenilworth Racecourse on 30 October 2018. A urine specimen which was taken from this horse disclosed, upon analysis, the presence of O-Desmethyltramadol which is a prohibited substance in terms of the Rules of the NHA.

Mr Kotzen pleaded not guilty to the charge, but was found guilty of the charge.

In arriving at a suitable penalty, the Inquiry Board took into consideration all mitigating factors and as this was a first offence, imposed a fine of R35 000.

Furthermore, in terms of Rule 72.3.2, HERODOTUS is disqualified from the said race and the provisions of Rule 67.7.8 shall apply.

Mr Kotzen has the Right of Appeal against both the finding and the penalty.

Media Release to all interested parties

You will have received our penalty from the NHA in regards to Herodotus’s positive identification for O-Desmethyltramadol.

I would like to inform the public that this is the first time in South African racing history this product has been picked up in a racehorse and on receiving the identification I beyond shocked as this is not a veterinary product used in horses but a human pain killer. I have taken it upon myself to investigate the contamination from water source, environmental factors and human contamination and employed some of the best forensic experts both here and abroad. With thorough investigation together with SAP’s I together with my wife, Kathi, found three staff members with IOD injuries in and around Herodotus’s win that were taking the medication which we have since learnt is routinely given to IOD patients who have undergone surgeries. Since this incident every employee in our employment has to sign a basic conditions of employment contract which includes declaring and advising us of any schedule medication they are taking and we have also put up signage in our yard forbidding urination in and around our stable yard together with general hand sanitization. Worldwide we have learnt that most O-Desmethyltramadol cases were human or environmental contamination. Similarly Richard Hannon in the UK received many positives over many years for the same product and he was pulling his hair out not being able to find the source - www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/richard-han...abolite-epsom-639033

Whilst we respect the part the NHA takes in protecting our industry and know the value of their service it is very sad that the strict liability clause ultimately makes me a guilty party and has caused our family tremendous emotional turmoil let alone the enormous financial losses we have incurred. Whilst I will not be appealing this ruling as it is based purely on wrongful interpretation of the strict liability rule in this country which automatically renders one liable as the trainer of the horse that tested positive. Abroad if a trainer can prove that they took all reasonable precautions to prevent a positive finding then the authorities won’t make a finding against the trainer concerned. I will, however, request the review board to look at the finding with regards to my case.


We would like to thank the owners of Herodotus who have from the very beginning stood by us whilst we investigated the cause of the contamination.


Kind regards

Glen

Shame on you Mr G Kotzen ,,,,,,,,

Debi wrote: Shame on you Mr G Kotzen ,,,,,,,,

Let’s give Glen a chance to hold his investigation

There is not one trainer who uses dope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The horse won the race in OCTOBER 2018 FFS

Why has it taken so long to come to this point? Please dont say Covid

Over the Air wrote: The horse won the race in OCTOBER 2018 FFS

Why has it taken so long to come to this point? Please dont say Covid

Seriously? Must be same team handling Zuma case......
Pathetic.

So traces of tramadol were found, therapeutically significant amount or sub-therapeutic amount? If the specimen was taken after the race then there would have to be traces of a significant amount to exert a therapeutic effect.

There have been double blind randomized studies on tramadol in sports people which show that it increases drowsiness & loss of concentration with a reduced response to stimuli. What would be the motive to use this drug unless you want the horse to fall over or run into a fence?

I am not defending dopers but sometimes you have to wonder, do the rulings stand up to scientific scrutiny?

If Glen has the money and is willing, he should challenge the ruling based on the clinical amount needed to exert a clinical effect and then ask how a drowsy horse runs faster.

We all know that the Good went down this road and ultimately won the caffeine case, but at what cost?

I suppose if you started searching staff on entry and exit as well as film the horses 100% of the time you may get the answer but is this viable and what would be the reaction of the staff be? Could a staff member have given the horse a tablet or have been taking the medication and urinated near the horse? Clinically there is nothing to suggest that this drug enhances performance so what would be the motivation?

"SA racing continues to concede own goals and the managers continue to bring on strikers"

Just my opinion, all disclaimers apply

Tigershark wrote: So traces of tramadol were found, therapeutically significant amount or sub-therapeutic amount? If the specimen was taken after the race then there would have to be traces of a significant amount to exert a therapeutic effect.

There have been double blind randomized studies on tramadol in sports people which show that it increases drowsiness & loss of concentration with a reduced response to stimuli. What would be the motive to use this drug unless you want the horse to fall over or run into a fence?

I am not defending dopers but sometimes you have to wonder, do the rulings stand up to scientific scrutiny?

If Glen has the money and is willing, he should challenge the ruling based on the clinical amount needed to exert a clinical effect and then ask how a drowsy horse runs faster.

We all know that the Good went down this road and ultimately won the caffeine case, but at what cost?

I suppose if you started searching staff on entry and exit as well as film the horses 100% of the time you may get the answer but is this viable and what would be the reaction of the staff be? Could a staff member have given the horse a tablet or have been taking the medication and urinated near the horse? Clinically there is nothing to suggest that this drug enhances performance so what would be the motivation?

"SA racing continues to concede own goals and the managers continue to bring on strikers"

Just my opinion, all disclaimers apply

I have taken this drug on script from my GP and all I can say is that I was drowsy for at least 24 hours and it took me at least 2 days to shake that "cloud" - If I were planning to stop a horse from winning this is the drug I'd use - I refuse to take this again and dumped the remaining pills