6 minute read
Can Congress find a solution?
Can Congress find the solution?
Could the Horseracing Integrity Act solve the ills currently besetting US horseracing and help find a united way forward? Dan Ross investigates
I T WOULDN’T BE disingenuous to say that this year has been something of an annus horribilis for horseracing in the US.
To recap, earlier this spring a spate of equine fatalities at the fêted Santa Anita racetrack in California triggered a media frenzy that has monopolised coverage of the sport.
National outlets such as CNN and HBO’s Real Sports ran detailed and damning reports that accrued lots of eyes within and without the industry. Influential politicians both at the state and federal level weighed in, issuing public statements damaging to racing’s image.
Newly minted California governor, Gavin Newsom, is reported to have said about the fallout from events this spring: “I’ll tell you, talk about a sport whose time is up unless they reform. That’s horseracing.”
Nor has the furore fizzled away. Highprofile meets in states such as New York and Kentucky played out against an intense spotlight trained on their individual welfare records.
As Santa Anita gears up to host the Breeders’ Cup once again, the anticipation of a global audience affords the track – and the broader racing industry in the state – no respite from harsh scrutiny.
Horseracing Integrity Act As all this unraveled, time and time and time again, industry stakeholders bemoaned the fact that there is no central ruling body governing the industry – one that could seize control of the crisis and lead the way in terms of messaging and actionable measures, just like the National Football League and National Basketball Association do for their respective sports.
This is hardly a new and insurgent idea. The sport’s regulatory system in the US – a patchwork quilt of different rules from state to state – has long been a bone of contention, especially amongst trainers and owners with large strings competing throughout the country.
Uniformity, therefore, has been a frequent rallying cry, but this year, this cry has perhaps been intoned with more passion than ever.
Which brings us to the Horseracing Integrity Act, aiming to bring all states under the auspices of the single ruling body governing a uniform set of medication rules and regulations.
“You’ve got to have somebody at the top,” said Arthur Hancock, owner of the Stone Farm breeding operation in Kentucky. Hancock and his wife Staci are two of the loudest proponents of the Horseracing Integrity Act, which corrals support in other high places.
This past August 16 prominent trainers – including Christophe Clement, Kiaran McLaughlin, Graham Motion, Todd Pletcher, and John Sadler – co-signed a letter backing the bill.
“Basically, we’ve got a national sport run by 38 different racing commissions,” added Staci Hancock. “If you were going to create a business model [for racing], that certainly wouldn’t be it.”
But not everyone – even those who champion uniform medication rules – believes the legislation is the panacea that racing is waiting for.
“Every time I deal with anything federal, I see sadly a lack of personnel and a lack of money,” said Maggi Moss, who was the leading owner in the country in terms of wins back in 2006.
A former state prosecutor, Moss says she’s not opposed to the idea of a national ruling body, but she’d rather see the industry institute its own.
Protestors at Santa Anita this spring
The loss of horses at Santa Anita this spring gave voice to those who wish to see US racing banned
Arthus Hancock
Breeder Arthur Hancock is a supporter of the Horseracing Integrity Act
The Horseracing Integrity Act would establish a broad number of things. For one, it requires the implementation of a board of governors, which will comprise the chief executive officer of the United States AntiDoping Agency (USADA), six individuals from USADA, and another six figures with ties to the racing industry, including an owner or breeder, trainer, jockey, and equine veterinarian (all of whom must have no concurrent conflicts of interest).
Among other components of the bill is the establishment of a uniform set of anti-doping and medication control rules, and a standardised set of procedures for “investigating, charging, and adjudicating” drug violations.
Perhaps the thorniest part of the bill – at least from a Stateside point of view – is the prohibition on medications administered within 24 hours of a race.
This means the anti-bleeding medication Lasix – a drug used ubiquitously in the States – will no longer be permitted on raceday. In response, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA) released in September a letter arguing that a Lasix-ban would “adversely impact” the health of the horse and the industry. The letter boasts nearly 1000 signatures.
“If they do remove the choice to administer Lasix on race day, horsemen will adapt,” said HBPA CEO, Eric Hamelback.
“But to what extent is that a good thing for equine health and welfare over a medication not proven to do anything wrong, and only be an assistance to the horses racing here in the United States?”
According to Moss, “there’s a lot of problems with the bill besides Lasix,” and she ticked-off a list of other concerns, including the absence of a clear mechanism to remove members of the board without an act of congress, as well as the law’s funding structure.
“It appears that [current] owners will end up funding this legislation, yet are excluded from the authority appointed and will have no part in decisions made that will directly affect them,” she said.
Proponents of the law, however, believe that the unyielding scrutiny that horseracing is under renders concerns over issues such as Lasix insignificant against the gestalt of the problems facing the industry. The bill, they say, offers the sport a golden opportunity to demonstrate to a skeptical public that it’s willing to take meaningful steps to right its own ship.
“’When something goes wrong, it either goes the right way or the wrong way, it never stays the same,’” said Hancock, relaying wisdom imparted to him by legendary trainer Vincent O’Brien. “We are going the right way, but whether or not we ever get there is another story.”
Chances of getting through?
The Horseracing Integrity Act hasn’t so far enjoyed the most auspicious of legislative journeys. The bill was introduced in 2015, before a slightly modified iteration came along two years later. Neither version made it far along the halls of power before dying a death. The latest version was introduced earlier this year.
Part of the reason for the law’s stalled progress, perhaps, concerns a competing effort towards medication uniformity: The National Uniform Medication Program (NUMP), a voluntary programme that requires states to adopt a series of different policies covering such as laboratory accreditation and multiple medication violations.
The programme has made an impact. Jurisdictions representing 95 per cent of parimutuel handle have adopted in full the rule for therapeutic substances.
“I think NUMP is something advantageous that we continue to work for,” said Hamelback, an advocate of “states’ rights,” who stressed what the programme has
The Horseracing Integrity Act 116 th Congress House Sponsors: Paul Tonko (D-NY) & Andy Barr (R-KY) Senate Sponsors: Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) & Martha McSally (R-AZ)
“Our goal has to be zero horse deaths in horseracing. I won’t stop working on this issue until we make that happen.”
“Frankly, it hasn’t worked and we can’t -sit around and wait another seven years,” wrote Jockey Club president and COO, Jim Gagliano, in an email.
And while the Horseracing Integrity Act hasn’t shown legs in the past, this year, it has a “real chance for a vote in this Congress,” he wrote.
“At the time of this writing we are at 150 cosponsors on the House bill and I expect many more will be coming on in the weeks ahead. Also, the chair of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the bill is an original cosponsor, and she has committed to moving the bill,” wrote Gagliano.
What might prevent that from happening, however, is something entirely disassociated from the bill’s substance and matter – namely the political gridlock that has wrought the nation’s capital to an effective standstill.
“The political momentum is growing to get it through,” said Staci Hancock, about the bill. “But I do worry about the state of affairs in Washington right now.”
