Political/Social commentary

Is this a reason racing doesn’t attract more fans?

Posted by noonante on April 5, 2024
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments

Horse racing participants have seemingly perpetual discussions about the existential threats to the ongoing viability of the sport and what can be done to counter those threats and attract new fans. Equine safety is, rightfully, one of those challenges. Declines in handle, at least in part fueled by “computer-assisted wagering,” may be less troubling but are nonetheless significant.

I participate in a regular Zoom call with friends from our college days. It’s about ten regulars, two of whom who have an interest in horse racing in addition to me. I do not know if the others are simply not interested or repelled by the sport. In a recent session, one of the fans asked what was going on.

I responded that there were big races coming up: the Saudi Cup, the Dubai World Cup and the start of the major preps for the Kentucky Derby and Kentucky Oaks. I had not given any thought to how what I said could be significant to the non-racing fan until after I responded and gave it some thought.

The Saudi Cup with a purse of $20 million is the world’s richest race and conducted in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The nation has been prominent in the news over the past several years because of its efforts to pour ridiculous amounts of money into popular sports such as golf and European football. It’s a technique often criticized as “greenwashing.” Why that term? It’s an effort to enhance their international reputation by buying their way out of behavior such as the murder of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi and then sawing up his body and hiding the remains. It is something that reputable news sources ascribe to the de facto leader of the nation, Mohammed bin Salman.

The Dubai World Cup, run on Saturday, had been the richest race with a purse of now $12 million. That country has seen astonishing development, in part the result of labor practices that border on slavery. But it is their leader, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who has engaged in behavior allegedly involving kidnapping an adult daughter, and one of his wives and the daughter fleeing Dubai in terror. His Godolphin operation is one of the most successful owners and breeders in the world.

When I talked to my friends about the Derby, I said a big issue this year was the continuing ban by Churchill Downs of trainer Bob Baffert. Baffert, of course, is the trainer of the sport’s last two Triple Crown winners, the first since 1978. He also trained Medina Spirit who was disqualified as the winner of the 2021 Derby for a drug positive. It was Baffert’s sixth positive over the preceding year, including the Kentucky Oaks winner from 2020 disqualified for the same drug.

That weekend’s top prep races for the Derby and the Oaks were run at the Fair Grounds in New Orleans. The Rachel Alexandra for three-year old fillies was won by a horse bred and owned by Godolphin. The Risen Star for three-year old colts was won by an entrant trained by Chad Brown.

Brown is one of the sport’s preeminent trainers, annually being one of the top purse earners and winning numerous major stakes each year. He was also arrested in 2022 in Saratoga Springs and accused of strangling a former girlfriend and throwing her down the stairs of his residence. After spending a night in jail, he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge than the original “obstruction of breathing.”

It was not Brown’s first encounter with legal difficulties. In 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor assessed Brown $1.6 million for multiple “willful” violations of the laws covering 150 of his employees. Among the violations were not paying required compensation and for immigration violations such as misrepresenting job conditions and not paying employer-required fees.

He is not alone in his disregard for legal requirements affecting his employees, most of whom are low-paying to begin with, and many are legal immigrants. Steve Asmussen regularly leads national standings for wins by a trainer and is in the top ranks of annual earnings, well in excess of $25 million per year. Yet he has several penalties for labor violations, being ordered to pay multi-million-dollar fines for his conduct.

Most recently, a federal district court in Kentucky doubled a prior fine because of a determination that Asmussen’s illegal behavior was “willful.” The determination that his behavior was “willful” is based on the multiple violations, his knowledge of the law and promises to conform his conduct, and the fact that he engaged in behavior “simulating compliance” with the law without taking steps to actually comply.

We have been talking about some of the most high-profile and influential figures in international and American racing. Stiffing low-paid immigrant workers is obviously not on a par with brutally murdering a political opponent, but there is precious little, if any, commentary from racing insiders on any of these matters. No one is hesitating to send horses to Saudi Arabia or Dubai despite their horrific record on basic human rights. And billionaire owners do not hesitate to use the like of Bob Baffert, Chad Brown and Steve Assmussen even with a demonstrated pattern of drugging horses and oppressing their work force.

While there are state regulatory bodies who could take action, all too often they look the other way, particularly when there are not the media-driven stories about drugging a horse, especially when such a horse wins the Kentucky Derby. There also seems to be a reluctance to go after the high-profile trainers who are so important to filling the fields for racing and have the top horses.

New York’s Gaming Commission (not to be confused with the New York Racing Association that controls racing at the state’s most significant tracks and is proving to be an innovative force committed to the sport) noted Asmussen’s most recent violation for stiffing his low-paid workers, issuing a press release by the Commission’s Chair, Bernard O’Dwyer, stating that he “does not take those types of violation lightly.” That was in October. Six months later, having done nothing and learning of a federal court doubling the penalties because it found Assmussen engaged in “willful” behavior, O’Dwyer assured New York’s residents that he takes this “very, very seriously.” But still did nothing other than asking for a legal review.

While a legal review is worthwhile, there have been two recent federal court decisions outlining the behavior I described above, both of which are available through a Google search. It’s not a secret. While the Commission’s lawyers are at it, perhaps they can explain how another high-profile trainer, Todd Pletcher, just had a court enjoin his suspension for drugs because they failed to introduce evidence of a lab’s analysis of the impermissible drug’s presence. The Commission at its last meeting upheld the suspension in a unanimous vote.

The responsible commentators on the “existential threats” to racing focus on the crucial issue of equine safety, as well as the negative impact of computer-assisted wagering in deterring long-time customers. Those, obviously, are matters of the highest priority, as is the need to attract new fans – and customers – to the sport.

There are nascent efforts to developing a different approach to marketing. A new group, Light Up Racing, recently conducted well-attended programs explaining an approach based upon the importance of social media. I cannot say I have any understanding of “influencers” and the potential impact of sites such as Instagram and Tik Tok, but the group’s approach is based upon a similar endeavor in Australia.

And then there is Mike Repole. It is difficult to make sense of him. He often appears as little more than a performative clown or huckster, or both. He announced the formation of the National Thoroughbred Alliance in October last year as a unifying force, and appointed himself “Commissioner.” But since then, he has yet to come up with an idea – significant or otherwise – and seems intent primarily on trashing The Jockey Club.

Then he claimed to be “Tinky.” For those not familiar, “Tinky” has been a long-time commentator on racing issues and is thoughtful, insightful, and reliant on facts. None of those are characteristics one would associate with Repole.

And there was his announcement that Dave Portnoy is the “future New Guard of horse racing” and that his ability “to attract the 15–40-year-old consumer would be massive…. and “could eliminate the snowflakes in the sport.” So we have the 55-year old Repole annointing the 47-year old Portnoy as racing’s future. That Portnoy, the founder of a financially successful enterprise known as “Barstool Sports,” is an obvious choice for the role could be belied by his whining that he is a “massive” influencer “who every demo knows” but is “completely ignored by the sport,” further calling into question Repole’s judgment.

Equine safety must be of paramount importance. It should be noted that there have been significant improvements in this area, both by individual tracks stepping up to improve conditions and institutional bodies also committed. There is, of course, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority overseeing both track safety and medication controls. They just released data showing that tracks under HISA’s jurisdiction have a significantly lower fatality rate that those refusing to take part. And The Jockey Club, bad-mouthed by those committed to maintaining the status quo, but is a long-time advocate for improvement.

A term I first learned of was the concept of “social license.” It is the view that racing can exist only under a social license because the majority of people are willing to grant it such a permission if the sport meets certain societal conditions. The most notable of these, of course, is that the safety and welfare of horses is a top priority and is being safeguarded. We should not lose sight, however, of the public perception created by ignoring some of the world’s most despicable actors, and the failure to address those for whom human safety and well-being take a back seat to the greed of its enablers. It is not clear to me that any attention is being paid to this necessity.

He wants to be the head of racing?

Posted by noonante on January 30, 2024
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

In late October, thoroughbred owner Mike Repole announced the formation of what he is calling the National Thoroughbred Alliance. As reported by Bill Finley in the Thoroughbred Daily News, Repole said he hoped the group could solve “some of the sport’s problems and create growth” in an industry obviously in need of both. He went on to say: ”There isn’t anybody that has a vision for this sport. On top of no vision, there is also no strategy.”

Here is how he had refined that vision and strategy in remarks he made at last week’s Eclipse Awards:

“So I implore you, please … be selfless over selfish. That’s number one. [But} this is the most important message of the night: Let’s fucking compete in the racetrack. Outside the racetrack, let’s compete together for what’s best for this game. I love this fucking game.”

(The quote is from T.D. Thornton’s article in TDN on the Eclipse Awards. I substituted a certain word where he had used “expletive.”)

Now I understand that three months is not a lot of time to reform the industry, but Repole does not appear to have accomplished much. I am not aware that he has attracted any “allies’ to his Alliance. His two positive moves (if you can accept the term “positive”) are, in a typically humble step, naming himself “Commissioner,” and hiring Pat Cummings as Executive Director.

But that hasn’t stopped him from engaging in negative behavior despite his assertions that the latest alphabet organization would be “inclusive” to “get everybody to work together.” After the farcical stewards’ decision to disqualify Brick Ambush at Aqueduct, he called for Stuart Janney and Jim Gagliano of The Jockey Club to resign. Presumably this is because one of the three stewards is appointed by The Jockey Club even though my understanding is that the main steward is the Gaming Commission’s selection.

Then there was the bizarre tweet (or is it an “x”?) referring to all the non-equine “geldings” in the sport. It is only speculation on my part, but the Eclipse committee had just announced that Stuart Janney would get an Eclipse for his meritorious service to the sport.

I do not understand his apparent animus to The Jockey Club, perhaps the only organization that maintains wide approval and respect unless he thinks it stands in his way as a potential competitor. Or perhaps he is hoping to attract other allies such as the National Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective Association. But there may not be another group that has more thoroughly demonstrated its steadfast opposition to reform and embrace of the status quo than the NHBPA.

My first recollection of Repole was when he was complaining - loudly - that he could “only” get 50 tickets for the Kentucky Derby that year. That may not be what he means by selfish behavior considering that it is difficult for the non-elite among us to be able to get a single ticket.

The Eclipse Awards are the sport’s equivalent of the Oscars. This year featured the emotional award to Cody’s Wish as the Horse of the Year, with the late Cody Dorfman’s family being in attendance. It was one of those moments where horse racing transcends the sport itself and represents what can be so great about racing. It is unfortunate that Repole’s puerile rant detracted from an otherwise uplifting evening.

Perhaps Pat Cummings will be successful in getting his boss to focus on the important issues facing racing. But one thing racing does not need for its public face is yet another large ego discharged from the Borough of Queens.

It’s time to get rid of the Gaming Commissioners in New York

Posted by noonante on December 22, 2023
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

The most recent controversial topic in New York racing is just one more indication that the State Gaming Commission is both an embarrassment to racing and further proof that this regulatory body has outlived its usefulness.

If you were caught up in holiday events and do not follow closely racing media, you may have missed the outrage over a disqualification decision in the ninth race at Aqueduct this past Saturday. The horse who crossed the finish line second, Brick Ambush, was disqualified and placed last following an incident that occurred at the quarter-pole near the end of a New York Stallion Series stake. Three horses were involved in bumping, including the first-place finisher Antonio of Venice. What has provoked the outrage is that Brick Ambush was not one of the three involved contestants.

The decision to DQ Brick Ambush has been described by experienced journalists as “baffling” or a “call that defies explanation.” I have watched the replay from multiple angles several times and it is indeed inexplicable. (For the record, I had no financial interest in the race.)

The connections of Brick Ambush, as well as that of the fourth-place horse, filed appeals. The Gaming Commission denied the appeals, asserting that decisions by the stewards are judgment calls based on questions of fact that are not appealable under Gaming Commission regulations.

There are three stewards for New York racing: one appointed by the Gaming Commission, one by NYRA, and one by The Jockey Club. I have read that the Gaming Commission steward is the head of the panel, and, according to Attorney Drew Mollica, the other two are merely advisory. While the Gaming Commission’s interpretation of the regulation may be correct, that does not end the inquiry.

This is not the first time in recent weeks that a decision - or non-decision - has provoked head-scratching controversy. There were two such races at Saratoga. The one that sticks out in my mind (perhaps because this time I did have a wagering interest) involved a non-DQ. A horse moved out from the rail. impeding my selection. This resulted in the two being so close that the impeded horse actually had his front legs under the other one. Setting aside the impact on the race outcome, it was an extremely dangerous circumstance that could have resulted in a spill affecting the safety of two horses and their jockeys. The horses finished first and second, but the Stewards found no basis to disqualify the winner.

If it were only bad calls by the Stewards, there might be no reason to be concerned since the Gaming Commission should replace their person on the panel. They have demonstrated no reluctance in levying significant fines against employees of NYRA who make a mistake. But it is also the conduct of the Commissioners themselves that raise more disturbing concerns. 

The most recent example is their handling of a drug positive from Saratoga’s Hopeful Stakes in 2022 [sic} won by Forte and trained by Todd Pletcher It was not until this month that a meeting of the Gaming Commissioners took up the matter of the drug positive from last year.

Forte was the Juvenile Champion of 2022 and was the morning-line favorite for the 2023 Kentucky Derby but scratched by a veterinarian because of a foot injury. Drug positives of Kentucky Derby horses has been in the racing news recently because Justify (trained by Bob Baffert) was eligible for the Derby only because the California Horse Racing Board found that it was a contaminant that caused the positive. Of course there is the drug positive of Medina Spirit, also trained by Baffert, who was disqualified from the 2021 Derby, and the racing infraction in the 2019 event disqualifying Maximum Security, trained by incarcerated felon Jason Servis.

So, it was going to be interesting to hear what the Gaming Commissioners said about their decision at the December 3 meeting. And … we are still waiting. The Commission approved the decision by the Hearing Officer upholding a disqualification of the colt and a $1,000 fine and 10-day suspension for trainer Pletcher. There was no discussion of the matter. 

But it is a Commissioner’s personal behavior that drew the attention of the Albany Times Union and reporter Emilie Munson in a September article portraying a potential conflict-of-interest. Marissa Shorenstein was appointed to the Gaming Commission in May 2022 and “for over a year” voted on matters affecting the New York Racing Association while employed by a public relations firm that did work for NYRA. The Commission, NYRA, Shorenstein and her employer all denied there was any impropriety, and the Munson article did not identify any troublesome actions. But when given the opportunity to identify external sources, Shorenstein, according to the TU “declined to say if she sought counsel or approval from the state agency or the state ethics commission” regarding her work and her employer’s relationship with NYRA.

One would expect a Commissioner to be particularly sensitive to issues of personal conduct and answer a straightforward question to put a matter to rest. That same Times Union has twice written extensive articles about the conduct of Gaming Commission employees, most recently an August article by Munson. In that piece, she asserted that numerous Gaming Commission employees have complained about a “toxic workplace for years, including allegations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, bullying, drug use and political favoritism.”

A Commission spokesperson dismissed the report saying “that these years-old allegations were either unsubstantiated or already addressed long before your story.” But according to the reporter, she received additional supporting accounts after the story was reported initially. In addition, a troubling development is that when the position of the Commission’s internal inspector general was transferred to an external agency, complaints about the Commission “have surged.”

The Chairman of the Gaming Commission, Brian O’Dwyer, similarly attempted to blunt the impact of the allegations by stating that the TU “aired complaints designed to paint our agency in a bad light.” Should the position of Captain Obvious become vacant, O’Dwyer has firmly established his credentials to become the replacement.

The Commission’s conduct - perhaps I should say “non-conduct” - has also been raised in Documented, a publication dealing with immigration issues. In a September article it identified numerous instances of back stretch employees in New York being subject to wage theft from being underpaid or made to pay their own costs for employer obligations. Some of the sports highest-profile trainers have been found to cheat employees on wages and been assessed substantial penalties by the United States Department of Labor.

Chad Brown was ordered to pay $1.4 million to 236 workers in 2019. Steve Assmussen was ordered to pay $563,000 to 170 workers a year later. Asmussen seems to be a repeat offender. In August, Thoroughbred Daily News reported that he was again ordered to pay employees and fined for a total of $205,000. According to the DOL announcement, this was his fourth such assessment “in recent years.”

Documented identified the Gaming Commission as the entity that permits such scofflaws to race their horses through its licensing authority. Spokesperson Brad Maione told the publication that no trainer ever had his or her license suspended or revoked for a wage violation, but “declined to comment further” as to why that had not happened.

But Chairman O’Dwyer assured the October 3 meeting of the Commissioners that when “we learned of trainers not paying workers we hold them accountable.” Apparently “accountability” to O’Dwyer means not identifying them, even though Asmussen’s multiple transgressions have been reported in both racing media and Documented. O’Dwyer said he directed Gaming Commission staff to report on the trainer’s employment practices and were reviewing a response submitted by Asmussen. That was October 3, and at the December meeting there was no further word. O’Dwyer appears to have a pattern of talking tough and doing nothing. 

While we began with an account of a Stewards’ decision in a state-bred race, I do not think I have ever witnessed the torrent of criticism for a decision that was not in the Kentucky Derby or a Breeders’ Cup race. Some of the critiques have been thoughtful (John Pricci) while others are half-baked (Mike Repole).

I do not think the language of the regulation cited by the Commission in dismissing appeals of the Brick Ambush appeal is that compelling, but I have not read any of the cases cited by the Commission. This is, however, a matter much bigger than this one case. The Gaming Commission now has a long history of negligence and malfeasance that no longer deserves support from the public. 

Governor Kathy Hochul, who is responsible for selecting the Commissioners and the Chair, should be attentive to the language of New York law establishing the Commission:

“… it is essential to maintain the public confidence and trust in the credibility and integrity of legalized gaming activities. To ensure such public confidence and trust, this article provides that the regulation of such gaming is to be conducted in the most efficient, transparent and effective manner possible…. The goal of this article is that all gaming activity conducted in this state will be of the highest integrity, credibility and quality and that the best interests of the public, both gaming and non-gaming will be served….”

It has become impossible to assert that this Gaming Commission and its Commissioners have achieved this purpose. It is time for the Commissioners to be replaced.

     

60 Minutes – the NHBPA doesn’t get it

Posted by noonante on November 26, 2023
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

For those who watched CBS’ 60 Minutes November 12, there was little that close followers of the sport did not already know. That caused me initially to be disappointed, but I am not in the program’s target audience. In Bill Finley’s article in Thoroughbred Daily News he notes that the show has an audience of some 9 million viewers. It is intended for the vast majority of viewers who know next to nothing about horse racing or whose knowledge is limited to watching the occasional Triple Crown race.

But if I did not “get it” initially, the head of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective Association is completely clueless. Eric Hamelback, CEO of the NHBPA, issued a response to 60 Minutes on November 13 complaining that the program was “not fair to the industry.” What he meant, however, is that it was not fair to Hamelback’s views. I do not know if he was interviewed, but his tiresome rants about the “elites” trying to “shrink horse racing” through such nefarious scenes as regulating the conduct of the sport did not address any of the issues raised by the program. Hamelback’s primary agenda is to criticize HISA, the acronym for the landmark federal legislation to bring uniformity to racing as well as the agency administering it.

Unsurprisingly, CBS focused on racing fatalities, including videos of horses breaking down in the stretch, and the drug convictions of major players including (of course) Jorge Navarro and Jason Servis. Hamelbach’s complaints – even if they had any merit – are not going to cut it when one of the leading trainers in the mid-Atlantic had Crocs with the words “Juice Man” painted on them.

While Hamelbach complains about the inaccuracies in the CBS narrative, his own statement is replete with false statements and inaccuracies. He thanks the “New Jersey Racing Commission, the FBI and others” for bringing down Navarro and Servis. But that is the racing commission that silently watched as those same trainers and their veterinarians drug horses while they rose to the top of the standings. The FBI obviously played a major role in investigating, but “the others” referenced by Hamelback would mean The Jockey Club, an organization that Hamelback and his supporters seek to remove from influence because they are the “elites” out to destroy the sport to further their own interests. But it is The Jockey Club – not the NHBPA nor any state racing commissions – that brought the sport’s problems to the attention of the FBI.

Although Hamelback asserts that The Jockey Club “by no means has the power or authority to speak on behalf of the industry,” the organization he heads claims to have such a mandate. Although stating that “the vast majority of horsemen nationwide … strongly oppose HISA in its current form,” the NHBPA has no basis for saying that. It is not an organization composed of horsemen and horsewomen, but one comprised of “affiliate organizations.” One such member is “New England,” the six-state region that no longer has thoroughbred racing. The tracks of California, New Jersey, Maryland, NYRA and Gulfstream Park are not members, meaning that the vast majority of actual horse people are not represented by the Hamelback group.

Hamelback points out that one Circuit Court of Appeals found that HISA was unconstitutional, but neglects to mention that after the U.S. Congress amended that law, that Court removed its finding of unconstitutionality.

Perhaps his most ingenuous statement is the assertion that drugs have not been shown to cause any of the recent fatalities that were referenced in the 60 Minutes piece. While that may be technically true, it ignores the accepted reality that many legitimate therapeutic medications may also mask symptoms of soreness that can then be a factor in a fatality. One of the significant benefits of a uniform national program of anti-doping and medication control is that the inconsistent state regulations can be harmonized to curb such abuses.

Yes it is true that the 60 Minutes broadcast did not highlight all of the improvements to reform racing in recent years or the efforts of the many honest and hard-working individuals who love horses. But I stopped watching 60 Minutes many years ago when it became apparent that they were not interested in nuanced reporting on what might be mildly complicated events. It is not truly a “news” agenda so much as a “ratings” (i.e., revenue) one.

But our industry is not helped when someone purporting to speak for the sport misstates and misrepresents facts to further his personal agenda. By creating the impression that everything is OK and nothing need be done, it is a grave disservice to all those doing the right thing. It does more harm than good. It may also eventually doom the very industry that he professes to care about.

HISA opponents: You are not serious people

Posted by noonante on October 11, 2023
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , . 1 Comment

Forgive me for appropriating one of the great lines from the Logan Roy character in Succession. But nothing can encapsulate better the opposition of those opposed to HISA and their chief enabler, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA).

HISA, the acronym for both the law and the agency overseeing it (the Horseracing and Safety Integrity Authority), is implementing uniform national standards governing thoroughbred racing in the country. It is the first time this has been attempted and follows decades of complaints about the lack of uniformity as one moves from state to state.

The law was signed in late 2020. HISA (the Authority) developed and promulgated regulations and established an agency that would oversee and enforce its requirements. Track safety standards were implemented in July 2022 and the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program took effect in May 2023.

The need for an agency that would be responsible for a national uniform program of health and safety has been controversial since its conception – even though every popular sport in the United States has such uniform oversight. The proponents emphasized concerns about health, safety and integrity. The opponents stressed that those from “outside” – however that may be defined – would not be familiar with the sport and the training of horses

The NHBPA became the most outspoken critic of HISA, including participating in lawsuits to stop the program. Their legal opposition centered on the constitutionality of the HISA law, and they obtained an injunction upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The law was then amended to remedy what Congress believed to be the legal infirmity. The case is now again before the Fifth Circuit challenging the amendment.

Congressman Clay Higgins, a Republican from Louisiana, recently introduced the Racehorse Health and Safety Act (RHSA) to replace HISA. It has been endorsed by the NHBPA and many of its affiliates across the country. The urgency with which the NHBPA views improving safety and health can best be demonstrated by reviewing the timeline predating the filing of this proposed legislation.

The NHBPA was established in 1940. While it purports to represent “over tens of thousands of horsemen” through its affiliate organizations, it does not have such organizations representing the thoroughbred horsemen and horsewomen in California, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Gulfstream Park and the tracks of the New York Racing Association.

To my knowledge, this is their first effort to support national legislation to reform racing. The filing of this bill last month is more than five years after the legislation that became HISA was introduced and publicly discussed among racing leaders and participants. HISA became federal law almost three years ago. Since that time, the governing authority (HISA) has promulgated proposed regulations, accepting comments to those regulations and finalizing them. It has since implemented the major components the law while simultaneously defending it in multiple court rooms.

I suppose one could commend the NHBPA for its deliberate approach in championing legislation that would address any flaws with the current law and incorporating the input of the many stakeholders in racing, but let’s look at what this proposed legislation would do:

  • Repeal HISA immediately, not replacing it with anything in the interim;
  • Delay the implementation of the bill’s new provisions for a minimum of two years after the effective date of the new law;
  • Allow for the law to never take effect if a sufficient number of states (two) do not sign on to this voluntary program;
  • Allow states to retain the enforcement of the law’s provisions instead of a uniform national system that would do that;
  • Remove the long-standing trainer responsibility principle for medication violations and replace it with a rebuttable presumption; and,
  • For the medication control committee, allow for a majority of members to be appointed by – wait for it! – the NHBPA.

This is legislation that would not result in anything positive for the health and safety of the equine and human athletes in racing but would set us back to a time even worse than what caused the realization that racing needed to reform or face extinction. The rhetoric accompanying the announcement of the bill’s introduction portrayed serious flaws in the agency implementing the federal law, and placed racing on “life support” because of HISA according to the President of the NHBPA.

Not to be outdone, the NHBPA’s long-time accomplice in opposing HISA, the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) released a report purportedly assessing the results of HISA thus far. To describe it as shallow and shoddy would be charitable. It could not even report accurately the implementation date of HISA’s Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program on May 22, 2023. Instead, it repeatedly said it occurred two months before. While this may seem an insignificant error, it was a date widely reported in the racing world, and perhaps they thought it would add a veneer of credibility to their “analysis” if it covered six months instead of only four. And if there was any part of the racing industry that should know better, it was these same racing commissioners for whom this was a vitally important date.

While the opponents cite a constitutional principle as driving their views, I doubt that even a handful could identify what that principle is. Rather, the opposition is predicated on some of the traditional standbys of those opposing change in their own particular field – protecting one’s turf. The NHBPA appears to exist solely to have their CEO appear at industry conferences and an occasional legislative hearing. The ARCI has a more immediate threat in that the HISA law would subsume many of their own regulatory duties. (Not knowing the correct date of HISA”s medication reforms is perhaps a useful indicator of how well they do those jobs.)

Another complaint, of course, is denigrating their replacements as outsiders who do not know what they are doing. Liza Lazarus, HISA’s CEO, has come under particular criticism for not being knowledgeable about racing. It is harder to direct that criticism against some of her lieutenants such as Mary Scollay or Jennifer Durenberger who have years of background in both racing and management oversight. But all one fair-minded person has to do is listen to any of the numerous sessions that HISA management, particularly Lazarus, has conducted with both racing groups, but more importantly with any of the numerous sessions conducted with on-track personnel. They also regularly contribute up-dates with the industry’s trade publications.

They, first of all, do such sessions, some of which are available on-line. They are knowledgeable, committed, and responsive to concerns. In a most remarkable attribute for those in positions of authority, they acknowledge mistakes and take steps to correct them. Are they perfect? Of course not. But they are willing to listen and make improvements.

But I suspect the true motivating factor behind much of the opposition is drugs, particularly Lasix. Lasix is an approved medication and is still permissible for administration on race day in most races (excepting two-year olds and stakes) in every jurisdiction in the United States. It is not permitted on race day in any other country in the world of which I am aware. Its purpose is to address pulmonary bleeding, although its fervent proponents recommend it as a prophylactic measure. (I have experienced a veterinarian recommending it following a race even though the horse did not bleed.) The HISA law calls for a study on its effectiveness.

While this has been a controversial topic in the past, and often generated spirited debate, the discussion of it has been remarkably muted in this discussion of HISA and its effectiveness. I suspect the reason is that HISA opponents do not view this as a particularly propitious time to be advocating for race day medications. Their place holder argument has become HISA’s preventing veterinarians from practicing medicine in a manner beneficial to horses. Thus we have the President of the NHBPA (and a veterinarian) arguing in an opinion piece, “the answer to cleaning up the industry cannot be to kill the industry entirely with a sledgehammer by eliminating veterinarians’ ability to properly practice through therapeutic medications.”

HISA, of course, does no such thing. But it is easier to raise bogus arguments about the constitution and the purported failings of HISA (both the agency and the law) than publicly admitting you seek a return to the halcyon days of more limited regulation of racehorse doping by the states. We should not forget that one of the prime factors behind the enactment of HISA was the massive (and successful) federal prosecution of numerous trainers and veterinarians that resulted in Jason Servis, Jorge Navarro, and their enabling veterinarians serving time in federal prisons. The favored approach of the NHBPA and ARCI is to restore that era when state racing jurisdictions did nothing to stop the widely perceived cheating and equine fatalities of Servis, Navarro and their accomplices.

The Test for Racing

Posted by noonante on August 7, 2023
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , . 1 Comment

There’s a popular racetrack aphorism: “If you didn’t have bad luck, you wouldn’t have any luck at all.” That could describe the state of the sport in recent months, particularly among casual or non-fans. At Derby time, a spate of deaths at Churchill Downs, including on Derby day itself, sparked yet another of the existential crises racing too often confronts. Saturday at Saratoga – again, one of the sport’s preeminent sites – an absolutely devastating fatal breakdown occurred in the final yards of The Test Stakes, a Grade 1 event for three-year old fillies.

The day was all set for the feel-good story of racing for the past two years: Cody’s Wish, named after a young man with a serious illness, was going for his seventh straight win in one of the track’s premier events, the Grade 1 Whitney Stakes. Namesake Cody Dorman and his family were there.

Another feel-good story would be developed in an earlier event, The Test. The trainer, Melanie Giddings, is a cancer survivor with a small stable in her first year of training one her own. She brought Maple Leaf Mel, her undefeated New York-bred to face some of the big fillies in the country, including the winner of the Kentucky Oaks. They were the subject of a feature segment on the Fox broadcast. Literally seconds away from what would be the first Grade 1 win for either, the filly broke down. (Cody’s Wish was later defeated.)

Even though I no longer live there, I subscribe to my former home-town paper, The Boston Globe. They cover horse racing that is not reporting the result of a Triple Crown race as often as The Daily Racing Form covers the debt limit. So, on Sunday I was interested in seeing if they had anything to say. It was an AP report with the headline opening with “Horse dies ….” No mention of the Whitney.

I anticipate this will spur another round of commentary from the mainstream media about fatalities in horse racing. It was the second fatality in a stakes race at Saratoga in three days. There was yet another the following day, the fourth in 14 days. There have also been three during training since the meet began. While I think a common thread in these articles – if the past is any guide – will be a lack of knowledge about racing and what is being done to improve it.

The knee-jerk response by many in the racing community will be to blame “the media” as is so often the case in other spheres where unpleasant (and undisputed) facts are presented. Nonetheless, we all need to confront what is an unfortunate and inevitable reality. Questions of safety have also become an increasing subject of friends and colleagues. It is not easy – indeed it is becoming increasingly difficult – but there are answers, if only hopeful ones.

There are significant events that are positive, including the implementation of a uniform and national program of Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC). As with all things in racing, of course, there are the naysayers who want to end this positive development. (That may not make racing unique since that is a characteristic, seemingly, of most events in our country these days.)

The ADMC Program was implemented over two months ago under the auspices of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) established by the U.S. Congress in 2020. While it was delayed because of litigation, the enforcement arm, the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit (HIWU), has hit the ground running. (Sorry for all the initials, but they are ones we will get used to.)

As with any initiative that attempts to impose national standards on an industry that has been correctly characterized as fractious and inconsistent in its oversight, there have been hiccups in the HISA implementation. The CEO, Liza Lazarus, and her leadership team have demonstrated their willingness to listen to complaints and make corrections to their rules. They have been readily available in all forums to the extent that Lazarus may be the only racing figure now more prevalent than Bob Baffert.

The complainants, primarily the National Horsemen Benevolent and Protective Association and their state affiliates, have raised a laundry list of issues regarding HISA. I do not think they rise to a level of serious concern. One need only listen to the objection of the NHBPA’s General Counsel, Peter Ecabert, to appreciate the fatuousness of their complaints. One of his major issues is that the medication control rules were implemented “nearly a year late.” He does not say the reason for that was the injunction obtained by his client, the NHBPA (later overturned on appeal).

But the other response to those raising questions is the horse and those who care for them. It is one thing to appreciate a Cody’s Wish on the racetrack, but seeing his interaction with his namesake human makes one appreciate the intelligence, sensitivity and nobility of the thoroughbred.

The love of most of those responsible for the care of the racehorse, whether it be the stable hand, groom, trainer or owner makes one realize how important the animal’s welfare is.

I did not go to the track this past Saturday and instead followed the races on Fox. While I tend to focus on my wagering, I did see the feature on Melanie Giddings and Maple Leaf Mel. I have not been able to describe the last scene of that to my wife, who was at the track, because I could not get through it without crying.

Maple Leaf Mel was lying down in her stall and Melanie went in and lay down beside her. When Mel raised her head, Melanie brought it into her lap and the two of them lay together like that.

“With friends like these….”

Posted by noonante on May 1, 2023
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

The long-awaited national program addressing drugs in horse racing with uniform rules and enforcement was implemented on Monday, March 27. Because of legal action filed by opponents of the new law, an injunction was issued and the federal agency overseeing it suspended it until May 22. While in effect for five days, the world did not come to an end in spite of the fear-mongering and apocalyptic rhetoric of those denying the evident need for reform in racing.

Leading the opposition over the years have been organizations such as the National Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective Association, some individual state HBPA’s and the Association of Racing Commissioners International. While their legal objections focus on the purported unconstitutionality of the Congressional legislation — the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act — the quarterly publication of the NHBPA I received recently presents different concerns.

An article by Tom Law and Jennie Rees in something called The Horsemen’s Journal has the sub-heading “Overreach of [HISA] permeates the horsemen’s gathering” of the first-ever (!!!) national meeting of the NHBPA and ARCI. It provides a wealth of comments by those opposing the law and none from anyone thinking reform is long overdue. Their opening sentence summarizes the tone of the sessions succinctly, referring to “discussions offering critiques and alternatives to costly federal regulations wreaking havoc throughout the Thoroughbred industry.”

Their so-called “alternatives” are both fanciful and delusional. They do not propose alternatives to the detailed regulations of HISA concerning either track safety or medication protocols, but rather — brace yourself — voluntary interstate compacts. The NHBPA’s General Counsel said such compacts allow for “responsive and quick resolution.”

There was no explanation for why their perceived obvious and meritorious solution had not been achieved in the more than two years since HISA became law, let alone since the NHBPA establishment in 1940 nor ARCI’s creation in 1934. There are, however, two possibilities. One is that neither organization sees the need for change. The other is that neither group truly represents the racing community beyond their own parochial interests.

While the NHBPA has the word “national” in its title, it consists only of “affiliate” organizations throughout the country, but not necessarily representative groups. Among the major racetracks not included are those in California, New Jersey, Maryland, the NYRA tracks and Gulfstream Park. They make no effort to solicit input from individual horse people. Indeed, this publication neither solicits opinion nor publishes views that detract from their party line.

The ARCI consists of racing commissions. While one panelist observed: “The bedrock concept of what curbs regulators is the fact that there’s transparency, there’s accountability. And HISA lacks that.” While that comment is from an attorney, he is not stating “facts,” but rather opinion. He obviously has never witnessed a session of the New York State Gaming Commission whose actions and “public” meetings are neither transparent nor accountable.

The only other state commission I am familiar with is that of California. Their public meetings are indeed public and sometimes lengthy (one lasted seven hours). Following a raft of breakdowns in 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom overhauled the Horse Racing Board that then came up with a number of positive changes improving the safety conditions for horses and humans. They have fully embraced the HISA reforms.

Other comments from the panelists were almost completely devoid of substance. One, from a “pro bono” law firm was almost Zen-like: “Uniformity should exist across jurisdictions, but uniformity should also exist across time.”

And despite all the fake concern about Constitutional standards, the bulk of the criticisms of HISA and the law were based mostly on personal grievances or imaginary issues. When they complain about horse people not being consulted, they mean they were not. The NHBPA CEO Eric Hamelback expressed it: “[W]e want to make sure the right participants are helping to make the decisions. I see it as the right participants are in this room.” In the decades I have been among the horse people they purport to speak for, I have never had my views solicited. Nor can I vote for officers, even though that is something I do in New York’s (unaffiliated) horse persons’ group NYTHA.

The hollowness, indeed, absurdity of the objections of the group were never better highlighted than in an issue of The Paulick Report where the Attorney General of Louisiana opined in an op-ed that “Louisiana horse racing has effectively policed itself for over 200 years” and did not need intervention.

While that comment undoubtedly raised many an eyebrow among horseplayers and observers of Louisiana politics, it ran alongside a report that State Police searching a trainer’s tack room at Delta Downs (in said state of Louisiana) had discovered “59 bottles of injectable medications, 352 hypodermic needles, 256 syringes and 75 packs of Albuterol Sulfate inhalation solution.” These items are considered “contraband,” yet a six-month suspension was stayed by the Louisiana Racing Commission pending appeals.

While AG Greg Landry, the state’s chief law enforcement officer, may cite this as an example of his state’s oversight of racing, we do not know how he would respond to the information that the trainer in question, James Tracy, was licensed by the Racing Commission even though he was under an indefinite suspension by Pennsylvania. As Paulick observed in a subsequent report:  “so much for reciprocity from one racing state to another” — as required under existing requirements. Landry’s piece was featured prominently in this issue of The Horsemen’s Journal.

Landry and another opponent of the new law, Kentucky’s HBPA President Rick Hiles, prefer to raise imaginary problems rather than address substantive ones. A common object of their attacks are the “billionaires” supporting HISA who as Hines stated, are the “powerful and well-financed minority backing HISA [who] opted for class warfare.” Yet Hines cannot even keep straight what his complaint is. While complaining that the NHBPA and ARCI were not “invited to the table” discussing reforms, he boasts that the efforts of those groups have forced HISA “to make substantial improvements.”

Are there issues with HISA? Of course there are. They are attempting to implement a federal law intended to overhaul the conduct of a sport that many of its participants believe is in drastic need to not just improve but survive. The drivel that emanated from this joint conference of self-appointed representatives not only did nothing to move that ball forward, but their distorted view of “success” would jeopardize racing’s future.

Is HISA already unraveling?

Posted by noonante on January 4, 2022
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics, Uncategorized. Tagged: , . Leave a comment

I’ll leave the punchlines for others. A year ago, Donald Trump, who at the time was President of the United States, signed legislation that was the most significant step ever to reform horse racing with its numerous failings. A year later that law may have hit a major roadblock, and Trump had nothing to do with it.


Last week, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) “suspended” their negotiations to have USADA become the independent enforcement body to implement the federal law (also known as HISA) mandating a national medication control program.

Just two weeks after the shocking news that Medina Spirit suddenly died following a workout at Santa Anita — with the attendant coverage on yet another existential threat to horse racing — we faced an event that has the potential to become even more devastating. For the many in the racing community who have advocated a dramatic overhaul to racing’s inconsistent, if not mostly meaningless, anti-doping regime, the announcement that USADA was not only named in the federal law, but was willing to take on the role, came as that rare ray of hope.

USADA is the gold standard for identifying and policing medication violations. It is the agency that brought down Lance Armstrong and cleaned up world-class cycling, the sport that may well have been the most notorious sport in the world for drug violations. It even cleaned up the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Horse racing, of course, presents a much more complicated environment than either of those given that in this country there are three dozen separate jurisdictions and thousands of participants.

I am not the only person who fears that the failure of HISA to reform significantly racing means that its demise is inevitable. That is why it is absolutely essential that both USADA and HISA publicly state the reasons for the breakdown in their negotiations.

I realize that negotiations on any matter are traditionally conducted with a veil of confidentially — and there are good reasons for that. In most disputes, the parties have bargaining positions that may involve proprietary information that could harm a competitive advantage. Or the issues are such that disclosure of bargaining positions could harm their public image.

But the negotiations involving the future of racing — and that is what we are talking about — are not typical. For one reason, neither USADA nor the HISA board have an actual interest in the outcome. USADA is valuable because they are independent. The majority of the HISA board are barred by the conflict-of-interest provisions of the HISA law from having an interest in any aspect of racing — and that is one of the strong points of the legislation.

But I am a person who does have an actual interest in the negotiations by virtue of the statute including me as a “covered person.” Me and the thousands of others who are “covered persons” by virtue of being a trainer, owner, breeder, jockey, racetrack, veterinarian or a person licensed by a state racing commission. We are not taking part in the negotiations even though they will have a direct and substantial impact on our participation in the sport.

And there are other parties that may not have a financial interest, but nonetheless have a considerable stake in the outcome of these talks. There are fans of racing — both current and those who could become fans if they think the sport is clean. And, of course, there are the horses, whose well-being is literally at stake.

The USADA statement announcing the suspension of negotiations contains language that is ominous in its import for the anti-doping program:

“…we have been unable to enter an agreement in line with the requirements of the Act, and one which would have given us a reasonable chance to put in place a credible and effective program…. we desperately tried to reach an agreement to implement the program, without compromising our values….”

(Emphasis is mine.)

USADA’s cautionary language strongly suggests that the breakdown in negotiations could be the result of differences that would completely undermine the integrity and public confidence in a resultant program. While a strong anti-doping program is absolutely essential, so too is the transparency that has been sorely lacking throughout the many jurisdictions now controlling racing. The HISA board and USADA owe those interested in racing a complete and thorough explanation that has been lacking in the 13 days since the announcement that negotiations had been suspended.

A growing sense of owner responsibility?

Posted by noonante on December 23, 2021
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , . 1 Comment

There may not be many silver linings to a once-prominent trainer being sentenced to five years in a federal prison for doping violations or to the ongoing saga of Bob Baffert and Medina Spirit. But one salutary aspect appears to be a growing sense that it is not just trainers and veterinarians who bear sole responsibility for drug violations but owners as well. While that may obvious, so far there have been no legal consequences for owners other than losing a purse following a medication violation.

That may finally be changing. Last week two prominent racing media sites have singled out one owner for using a trainer with a history of multiple drug violations. I have a great deal of respect for The Paulick Report and Thoroughbred Daily News for their coverage of horse welfare issues, particularly when it comes to medication matters. The owner referenced is Joe Appelbaum who used Jose C. Vazquez as a trainer. Appelbaum is a significant figure in horse racing as the President of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association. But he is not even remotely in the same league as the more prominent owners who time and again entrust their horses with questionable trainers.

Appelbaum was pilloried for his racing operation, Off The Hook, using Vazquez as its trainer. I do not know either Appelbaum or Vazquez personally, and was frankly not aware of Vazquez’ reputation. So I went to the database thoroughbredrulings.com to ascertain his record. I only looked at the past four years and learned that Vazquez was listed in multiple rulings by state racing authorities, many of which can be categorized as minor or paperwork infractions. Five, however, were for medication positives over that period of time. He was also denied a license by the New York State Gaming Commission on April 18, 2018, without a detailed explanation for the reason. Since he is now racing in New York, the license was subsequently granted, again without any stated reason, vague or otherwise.

I asked NYTHA for a response to the Paulick and TDN reports and received an answer from Appelbaum directly. (It is not clear to me that either Paulick or TDN sought a comment from him.) While recognizing that the criticism of him could be valid for giving Vazquez a “second chance,” he also acknowledges that he is held to a higher standard. He has now transferred their horse to a new trainer, following an “independent veterinary screening (including blood work).”

As I said, I know nothing of Vazquez. I am leery of ascribing negative connotations to anyone based on rumors or reputation. Since 2018, while Vazquez has been cited for five medication violations, there have been none since February 27, 2020. Coincidentally, Bob Baffert has had five violations in the one year commencing May 1, 2020, working for some of the most prominent owners in the business.

In his statement to me, Joe Appelbaum accepted responsibility for retaining Vazquez. He also responded to my query promptly (within hours on a Friday afternoon) and exhibited the transparency that is so rare in racing. Would that New York’s State Gaming Commission had the same level of accountability. After all, they granted Vazquez a license after denying him with no meaningful explanation in early 2018.

Racing has plenty of room for examining the accountability of owners as I argued in this post about owners much more prominent than Joe Appelbaum. And it must be done with transparency.

As Appelbaum concluded in his response to me, “[M]aybe we should each ask ourselves; What have I done for the welfare of our horses?”