CHRB

All posts tagged CHRB

“The more things don’t change….”

Posted by noonante on August 24, 2020
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Saratoga thoughts. Tagged: , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

You know the expression: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” That doesn’t actually apply in the world of American horse racing because things don’t change all that much.

This past week the Racing Medication & Testing Consortium issued a “Thyroxine Advisory” in concert with the American Association of Equine Practitioners. It was a necessary step according to the groups because of evidence of “wholesale use of thyroxine in entire populations of racehorses as a ‘wellness’ supplement rather than as the prescription medication that it is.”

When I showed their news release to my spouse, she responded, “Is that from five years ago?” While her memory on pedigrees is close to infallible, she was off this time by two years. Thyroxine hit the spotlight in the world of racing seven years ago in connection with an investigation of a cluster of cardiac fatalities in the barn of trainer Bob Baffert.

Although the California Horse Racing Board did not pinpoint the use of thyroxine as the cause of the “extremely abnormal” cluster, Baffert acknowledged giving the drug to all the horses in his barn. He did so even though it is a prescription medication intended for treatment of specific medical conditions.

The CHRB issued its own guidance in May, 2014, to address what it called “apparently indiscriminate use” of the medication. It required that thyroxine only be administered for a “specific horse and condition” and prescribed by a CHRB-licensed veterinarian.

That month was also the time of reports by NBC and HBO on the controversies regarding the treatment of horses, partially sparked by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals putting an undercover agent in the barns of Steve Asmussen at Churchill Downs and Saratoga.

HBO reporter Bernard Goldberg questioned Asmussen about a filly suffering a fatal heart attack after crossing the finish line. Asmussen acknowledged the horse had received both Lasix and Clenbuterol (both legal medications at the time). Then he said that he “feeds” thyroxine to his horses. Again, treating it as a nutritional supplement as opposed to a prescription medication with potentially serious side effects.

The New York State Gaming Commission conducted an investigation of the many allegations by PETA of abuse in the Asmussen barn. They cleared him of many of the claims, but did find that 58 of the 66 horses that ran in Saratoga in 2013 were incorrectly administered thyroxine too close to a race. They fined him $10,000, although my calculations at the time concluded that the minimum fine should have been $29,000. For one of the game’s most successful trainers, $29K probably amounts to a rounding error.

So there you have it. Two Hall-of-Fame trainers are found to have violated standard veterinary guidelines and administered a prescription medication as a matter of course regardless of whether it was being used to treat a medical condition. One was not penalized and the other got a slap on the wrist.

So I wonder why it became necessary five years later to issue an “advisory” restating that standard guideline because of concerns over “wholesale” use of a prescription medication as a nutritional supplement.

It may not have been deliberate, but the RMTC and AAEP did not issue the advisory until after The Jockey Club Round Table on August 16. It has become a forum for the necessity of a national body that oversees uniform regulations and a consistent enforcement mechanism.

In that interview on HBO with Bernard Goldberg, Asmussen explained his 28 drug violations (in 2014) as the result of inconsistent state regulations. With the New York findings that number is now at least 86. The cheaters are just laughing at the rest of us who want a clean sport.

Will New York be next in the spotlight?

Posted by noonante on October 3, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

“As the racing world holds its collective breath, Santa Anita opened its fall meet  –  leading to the Breeders’ Cup  –  on Friday.  The one certainty is that any equine fatality will become a national media story.  If there is a second, the calls for outlawing the sport will increase.”  I wrote that Saturday morning.  Saturday afternoon, Santa Anita experienced its first racing fatality and the second since training resumed.

Santa Anita is in the national spotlight because there have now been 32 fatalities on its tracks this year, both in racing and training.  While there are several tracks in the state, Del Mar, the only other one that gets national attention, just concluded its recent meet with no deaths.

New York has four thoroughbred tracks, with Saratoga and Belmont being the most prominent.  New York has so far escaped the level of scrutiny that makes for the daily drama at Santa Anita. It is not, however, because the level of fatalities at New York’s tracks is not in the same ballpark.

If we only look at Saratoga and Belmont, there have been 36 total fatalities this year, including both racing and training.  Aqueduct, which races for the six months not covered by that pair, has had four.  Finger Lakes, a track not run by the New York Racing Association, has had 10.

I am not using these numbers to suggest that there is some sort of meaningful comparison that can be made between safety in California and New York.  There are numerous variables that must be considered in making any conclusions based strictly on numbers.  And California still has not stated publicly if it has determined the reason for the spike in fatalities earlier this year.

My point is that there is another high-profile racing jurisdiction that may have dodged the bullet of national scrutiny, but that it is living on borrowed time.   And that borrowed time may also be true for the racing industry as well.

The Stronach Group that runs California has undertaken a number of reforms to address the crisis.  Among the more controversial steps have been restrictions on the use of the whip and a gradual phase-out of the race-day medication Lasix.  It has also increased significantly pre-race veterinary examination protocols and is now requiring advance notice of morning works and pre-work veterinary reviews.  California’s regulatory body, the Horse Racing Board (CHRB), has been extensively involved in discussing and approving safety iniitatives.

While The Stronach Group and the CHRB are addressing both safety concerns and the increasingly negative perception of racing with imaginative and forward looking steps, the same cannot be said of its counterparts in New York.  NYRA is the parallel of The Stronach Group and the New York State Gaming Commission is the regulatory body akin to the CHRB overseeing horse racing.

New York experienced its own high-profile crisis with equine fatalities in the early part of 2012 at Aqueduct Racetrack.  Governor Andrew Cuomo directed an investigation by a panel of experts who came up with a 100-page Report looking at possible causes and recommendations for improvement.

One of the recommendations was that the regulatory agency “should expand its recently enacted out-of-competition testing rule” to include additional medications.  It is a recommendation Governor Cuomo specifically cited when he directed the regulatory agency to adopt it.  (Out-of-competition testing is not to be confused with the standard post-race drug testing that is commonplace.)

Out-of-Competition Testing (OCT) is universally accepted as a necessary component of any program to detect cheating in sports.  It is a tool used by the United States Anti-Doping Agency to catch cheats in cycling and track and field, and by the major team sport leagues in America.  Even the Ultimate Fighting Championship has an effective program.  Dr. Rick Arthur, the Equine Medical Director for the state of California, has said that without an out-of-competition testing program with teeth, you won’t have a real anti-doping program.

So how is New York doing?  I have been submitting public records requests for New York data going back to January 1, 2014.  More than five and one-half years later, New York has never identified a thoroughbred horse that tested positive in an out-of-competition test.  Never.

That may be because they do not conduct the unannounced surprise testing that is an essential component of an effective program.  New York’s Gaming Commission instead announces they will be conducting OCT on horses in the days before a Grade I stake worth a million dollars.  The lone exception to this was a low-profile trainer who had some negative media attention before the horses in his barn were tested.  (The treatment of low-profile trainers in contrast to the “super trainers” is a subject for another article.)

There is another matter that Governor Cuomo directed his regulatory agency to implement from the 2012 Task Force Report.  That would be a regulation governing the purse value in claiming races, or the “purse-to-price ratio” that I have written about several times.  Dr. Scott Palmer, DVM, who chaired the Task Force and is now New York’s Equine Medical Director, said:

 … there’s some very good research that’s shown that there is an increased amount of risk of catastrophic injury for horses in claiming races where the purse to price ratio is greater than 1.8 to one.  This is a very sound piece of scientific information …”

(The ratio compares the purse value to the claiming price.  A 1.8 ratio means that the purse cannot exceed $36,000 in a $20,000 claiming race,).

Palmer’s comment was made in a meeting of the Gaming Commission that caused me to wonder if I was hearing things correctly.  Because he was advocating for increasing the ratio over its then-level of 2.0.  So at a time when the nation’s public attention to racing was largely concerned with fatalities at Santa Anita, we had New York’s Equine Medical Director proposing a rule change contrary to that of his own Task Force (and the Governor’s explicit directive) that would lessen safety protections for horses and jockeys.

Over a five-week period beginning in August, three of the fatalities from racing at Saratoga and Belmont came where the purse-to-claim ratio exceeded Palmer’s standard of 1.8.

One can certainly argue that increasing the purse in a claiming race is not going to cause a catastrophic injury.  One can similarly argue that Lasix was not the cause of the fatalities at Santa Anita.  What would seem to be inarguable, however, is that horse racing has a serious public perception problem, and that the use of race-day medication and the Palmer-backed change is not going to convince a skeptical public that racing is doing everything it can to protect horses and jockeys.

While California has The Stronach Group and the CHRB acutely aware of the need for public support, it also has a Governor and a United States Senator who have already made public comments raising a possibility that horse racing could be abolished.  If New York’s racing leaders think Governor Cuomo will stand with them if the state begins to experience a similar level of controversy, it time for them to stop deluding themselves.

The Thoroughbred Daily News had a recent feature in which it asked prominent racing insiders to comment on a controversial proposal by The Jockey Club to regulate breeding.  A common thread of many responses was that the industry had more important issues, implicitly saying that the sport could only focus on one matter at a time.  Much to my delight, TDN is now asking “what would you do to improve the sport?”

The first respondent identified free past performance data as his top priority.  That’s right.  An industry is confronting a legitimate existential crisis and the most important matter is getting free PP’s into the hands of those who don’t want to spend $4 to get a racing card from The Daily Racing Form.

This is a level of obtuseness that may be the second biggest threat to racing’s survival.  The national racing organizations  –  with the notable exception of The Jockey Club  –  are bereft of ideas and are instead clinging desperately to maintain the status quo, even though that status quo has seen constantly declining metrics on the sport’s perception.

One such group, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, recently put out a statement advocating the retention of Lasix on race day.  Then there is the Association of Racing Commissioners International  –  possibly in an effort to emphasize their cluelessness  – said that if the horse people who cared so much about their horses could not use Lasix, they would start injecting formaldehyde.  Seriously.

New York could join with California and start implementing safety-oriented steps  –  I would start with a vigorous program of Out-of-Competition Testing.  I candidly doubt that New York will take any meaningful actions.  It is yet another reason that those concerned about the future of the sport should push for adoption of the Horse Racing Integrity Act in the United States Congress.

 

 

 

 

Racing’s latest crisis raises questions about its survival

Posted by noonante on April 25, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Thoroughbred racing is facing its latest crisis as a result of a large number of fatalities at Santa Anita Park.  Since its current meet began on December 26, 23 horses have been fatally injured while racing or training.  The Stronach Group that owns and operates Santa Anita responded with measures that are revolutionary in a business that typically moves with the speed of a slow-moving glacier.  They are adopting “house rules” that will prohibit the use of the whip except when needed as a safety measure, and also gradually ban the race-day medication Lasix.  Other medications that are permissible will be subject to stricter standards.

As significant as these changes are, the real story is whether this crisis is the one that will ultimately end the sport.  It is more than a public relations crisis, and is increasingly being viewed as an existential one.

Some people  –  OK, most people  –  undoubtedly view the prohibition on whipping an animal and administering drugs to that animal so that it can race as no-brainers.  That is, if they are not shocked that both practices are currently allowed in all racing jurisdictions in the United States.

California’s racing leaders are seriously concerned that a ballot initiative could ban racing in the state.  One statistic I saw is that placing a measure on the state-wide ballot requires 600,000 signatures and that PETA, a leader in protests over the fatalities, has 700,000 members in California.  Senator Diane Feinstein and Congressperson Judy Chu (who represents the district including Santa Anita) have both expressed serious reservations about the state of racing.  According to Bill Finley in Thoroughbred Daily News, the Los Angeles Times has called for racing to be suspended until the track determines the causes of the fatalities.

Unfortunately, that same sense of urgency  –  and, I would suggest, reality  –  does not apply to other influential voices in the racing industry.

There are the national and local organizations representing trainers and owners.  When these modern-day Rip Van Winkles finally wake up, there may no longer be a sport of horse racing.  The National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA) held its national convention in mid-March as the crisis at Santa Anita was coming to a head.  If you listened to them, you would think the key to bringing in new fans and increasing handle was not in changing a broad-based negative perception, but in providing free past performance data.  I did not see a single media account of any discussion of the situation in California.

It’s not surprising that this group did not want to discuss the reality of what is going on at Santa Anita.  They are in the forefront of the denialism that racing has a significant perception problem caused by the use of drugs.  In written testimony for a Congressional hearing on proposed federal legislation last June, Eric Hamelback, CEO of the National HBPA, stated:

“The support for [the federal legislation] comes from a well-financed vocal minority of owners and trainers … who claim ‘the fragmented system of medication regulation is not working.’  The implication here is that the result is widespread illegal drug use or ‘cheating.’  However, those who make that claim offer no evidence to support the notion of rampant illegal drug use.  That is no surprise because there is none that I know of….

Any asserted problem is one of misperception caused by recurrent sensationalism in the public media….

Horse racing in the United States has the most comprehensive testing program of any sport in the world and employs the most sophisticated and sensitive equipment found anywhere….

… 99.5% of over 354,000 tests of biological samples taken from thoroughbred race horses were negative for drug use….  these results should be the envy of every other sport that tests athletes for drugs….”

There’s a lot to unpack in that brief excerpt.  For starters, the notion that horse racing has the most sophisticated testing that “should be the envy of every other sport” is downright ludicrous.  When a horse of the stature of a Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Robinson Cano or Julian Edelman is sanctioned for illegal drug use we might give some credence to Hamelback’s hyperbole.

The “99.5 per cent” figure is regularly used by the denialists to prove the sport is clean.  I do not dispute that is an accurate number, but it is so high because there are a number of drugs that cannot be detected by the supposedly “sophisticated” testing of Hamelback’s imagination.

The racing media has been filled recently with articles about bisphosphonate.  I had not heard of this one until a couple of weeks ago when the mid-Atlantic tracks and sales companies started restricting its usage.  According to Dr. Rick Arthur, California’s Equine Medical Director, it does not have a legitimate therapeutic use at a track.  The concern, however, is that it can be used on younger horses going through a sale to hide radiographic evidence of a bone issue.  Nice, right, for an industry seeking to convince folks there is nothing to see here?  While sales companies say a horse testing positive for  bisphosphonates can be returned, there is not yet a reliable test when the drug is administered sufficiently far in advance of the sale.  So I guess there would be a 100% rate of sales horses testing negative for bisphosphonates.

Then there is Hamelback’s argument that the “well-financed” proponents of federal legislation are implying that there is “widespread” and “rampant” cheating.  I am not aware of any responsible person associated with racing saying there is “rampant” cheating.  But I have also never met an owner, trainer, track worker, race track employee or fan who does not believe there is cheating.  The widespread perception that cheating is a regular feature of racing, even if limited, is devastating.

Finally, there are the well-worn tropes that “the media” is responsible for the negative perceptions and that “we need to do a better job of educating the public.”  Ed Martin, President of the Association of Racing Commissioners International laments that all the money spent on, among others, “bloggers” could be better devoted to research.  (I take particular umbrage at that one since I have not seen the largesse.)  The difficulty, however, lies in convincing the public that whipping a horse or giving it drugs so it can race are actions inspired by a love for the animal.

We do not know if the causes of any of the Santa Anita fatalities are related to drugs.  From what I know of Lasix, it would be astonishing if the diuretic was the direct cause of any fatalities, let alone 23 of them.  But The Stronach Group’s announcement of a ban had less to do with a possible cause for the fatalities, and more to do with a perception that race-day medications are harming the sport, if not the horse.

The use of drugs in horse racing is more complicated than whether race-day medications should be permitted.  I think there are three categories into which drugs can be grouped.

The first  –  and easiest to deal with  –  are drugs that have no therapeutic value and are only used because of performance-enhancing aspects or to mask pain in the horse.  Out-of-Competition Testing is intended to identify these substances.  But if a state such as New York doesn’t take it seriously, abuse is likely to be more widespread.  New York doesn’t even track the results of whatever testing it does, and in response to a public records request covering periods of several years, could not identify a single thoroughbred testing positive.  Charles Hayward, who just wrote an excellent piece on the medication issue for Thoroughbred Racing Commentary pointed out that California has no penalties for violations.

The second group consists of Lasix.  It is the only medication approved in every racing jurisdiction in the United States for use on the day of a race, but is illegal in every other country with racing.  Its stated purpose is to prevent Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhaging  –  more commonly referred to as “bleeding.”  Regulations typically require that a veterinarian must establish that a horse bled in order for it to be given the medication.  The reality is that it is a rule observed more in its breach than its observance.  I have had a vet recommend Lasix even though there was no indication the horse bled.  And the reality is that approximately 95 per cent of the horses on a given race card are being given the drug.

The other reality is that it is a performance-enhancing drug. It causes a horse to lose some 20 pounds in weight because of its diuretic effect.  If weight is not an important factor in racing, we would not give a weight break to apprentice jockeys, nor have “handicap” races in which horses are assigned different weights based on expected performance.  Even those owners and trainers expressing public opposition to Lasix continue to administer it to their own horses so as not to lose what is widely acknowledged as an “advantage.”

The third category is the one that I think would be much more troubling than the use of Lasix but for the fact there is no data on usage.  These are legal and permissible therapeutic medications.  Racing deals with this category by specifying withdrawal times before a race and levels of concentration during a post-race test below which there is no violation.  Thus, New York prohibits the administration of butorphanol  within 96 hours of a race, and a concentration level below 300 ng/ml in a post-race test carries no penalty.

A horse, of course, can experience any number of ailments for which a medication may be an essential treatment.  Standards of veterinary care require that the ailment be diagnosed and treatment recommended by a vet who has examined the animal.  The problem arises when the “legal” drug continues to be administered even after the need for it no longer exists.  There are two examples in recent years in which this has been abundantly clear.

The New York Gaming Commission publishes three days of veterinary records immediately before Grade I races having a purse of $1 million or more.  In the first year of the Commission making these results available, there was a remarkable situation.  One high-profile trainer who had numerous horses entered in such races administered the same drug, with the same dosage, for every one of his horses every day.  It of course defies common sense that this was the result of a vet examining the horse, finding that each had the same condition, and then prescribing the same medication.  I must not have been the only person noticing this seeming anomaly because in subsequent years the practice stopped.

In the other example, a high-profile trainer’s horse was “featured” in a New York Times article because he was one of the fatalities at Aqueduct in 2011-12 that was their own crisis of equine deaths.  The accompanying article stated the gelding experienced pain and cartilage damage from a degenerative joint disease, and had been injected 13 times in the month before the race to treat that condition, including an injection into a joint five days before the race. Again, this was a “legal” drug administered within “legal” restrictions.  It is, however, a medication that if administered in the described manner meant the horse had no business on a race track.  (New York has since tightened its regulations on joint injections.)

Are there other examples today of similarly horrifying stories?  Of course there are, unless you are a hopeless naïf or the head of an organization such as the National HBPA or ARCI.  Is racing taking steps to improve the situation?  They are.  In the examples just cited, New York required reports that resulted in identifying one problem and took corrective actions following the other.  Is the progress sufficient?  Not if you are a horse or a jockey  –  or a member of the general public.

And there are those whose awareness of racing’s current environment are as clueless as that of Rip Van Winkle upon awakening.  Veterinarian Jeff Blea commented that Santa Anita field sizes have been down in recent weeks because of the crisis:

“Trainers are doing their jobs.  Veterinarians are doing their jobs.  People aren’t wanting to push these horses and take those risks like they did before.”

Blea is Chair of the American Association of Equine Practitioners’ Racing Committee, quoted in Thoroughbred Daily News on April 20.

While one might expect that veterinarians would be in the forefront of safety initiatives, his approach is not dissimilar to that of New York’s Equine Medical Director Scott Palmer, DVM, who recently convinced New York’s Gaming Commission to weaken a safety regulation enacted after New York experienced its own crisis of track fatalities in 2011-12.  Palmer acknowledged the increased risk to the horse (and jockey) but thought it could be offset by other measures.

Fortunately, there are industry figures who do not believe there is an acceptable level of horse deaths that will be acceptable to the public.  The first, of course, is Belinda Stronach taking radical steps to address the negative perceptions heightened by the Santa Anita fatalities.

The reforms announced by The Stronach Group go well beyond the banning of race-day medications.  But the Lasix ban prompted a coalition of other tracks to adopt their own restrictions on the diuretic, banning its use on two-year-olds in 2020 and in many stakes races starting in 2021.  While many have praised this as a good first step, it sends an awkward message for a policy intended to address one of racing’s biggest perception problems:  if race-day medication is not acceptable for stakes horses and babies, why is it permissible on the lesser horses who make up the vast majority of racehorses?

The Jockey Club is the “breed registry” for the U.S. and Canada, and also keeps valuable data bases on what is going on in the sport, as well as funding important health-related research.  In the past month, they published their vision for comprehensive reform, available here, and must-reading for anyone concerned about the future of the sport.

The Jockey Club also supports the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2019, H.R. 1754, the current version of legislation that has been introduced in the last two Congresses.  The bill would create a private and independent anti-doping authority for horse racing that would establish uniform national standards, overseen by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).  The same industry entities leading the fight to keep Lasix also oppose national legislation to establish uniformity on medication policies within the states.

I think that anyone who wants to see racing survive and thrive should make their views known to their U.S. Senators and Members of Congress.  Even if Santa Anita weathers this current crisis, there will be another, either there or elsewhere.  It is foolhardy to think racing is guaranteed to go on indefinitely.  Either racing can present a unified front on reform, or abolition efforts will take over.  An institution that arrogantly thinks it can escape change is doomed to failure.