NHBPA

All posts tagged NHBPA

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.

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.

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 is at a tipping point

Posted by noonante on June 1, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , . 2 Comments

Recent media coverage of horse racing is starting to feel like beach erosion.  Once it starts, it doesn’t get any better  –  ever.

The large number of fatalities at Santa Anita Park in the first three months of the year was, understandably, the most dramatic and important story.  There were 23 horses who were fatally injured while racing or training at Santa Anita’s tracks after it opened for its annual winter meet on December 26.

Then there was the controversy over the disqualification of Maximum Security who crossed the finish line first in the Kentucky Derby, but interfered with several other entrants including, most significantly, War of Will.  While the stewards made what, in my opinion, was the correct decision, the sub rosa suspicions did nothing to increase confidence in the integrity of the sport.

When War of Will came back to win the Preakness, the non-racing media’s lead was that of Bodexpress tossing his rider at the gate and continuing to run.  This was a remarkable event only to those who have not seen many races.  That both the Derby interference and a loose horse in the Preakness could have resulted in serious injuries to both horses and riders did not seem to be a factor in the national spotlight.

To top it off there was HBO’s Real Sports segment on horse racing last week.  It is not a program I watch, and have only seen this one and the one they did five years ago following PETA’s complaints about the Steve Asmussen barn.  This look at racing every five years was a sickening and horrific look at what are, undoubtedly, some of racing’s worst moments.

As one who follows closely racing, politics and their intersection, I cannot think of a more perilous time for racing’s survival  – and I am not talking long-term.  The rash of deaths at Santa Anita resulted in leading political figures and the Los Angeles Times calling for the suspension of racing at one of the sport’s most prominent venues.   Santa Anita officials did just that in an effort to determine if they could pinpoint the cause of the fatalities.  They have not yet, and returned with a remarkable period of no catastrophic injuries for six weeks, but now experienced three in a recent nine-day span.

It is disturbing, albeit predictable, that new fatalities have caused both Senator Dianne Feinstein and The Los Angeles Times to renew their calls to suspend racing until the reason for the fatalities has been determined.  California Governor Gavin Newsom recently added his voice in endorsing a number of proposed reforms in the state:  “The recent horse fatalities in California are unacceptable.  We must hold the horse racing industry to account.”

There are not many certainties in politics, and politicians have been known, to put it mildly, to change their positions.  But when an elected official takes a stand on an issue that is emotionally charged, they are less likely to back down and will want to see their concerns addressed.

There is no national voice to counter the assault on the sport’s integrity and value.  There are many respected figures in racing, and there are many organizations.  Unfortunately, no individual can speak for the industry, and the national organizations are not only useless, but often downright embarrassing.

Groups such as the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective Association and the Association of Racing Commissioners International continue to respond to negative press with the same tired tropes that are easily disprovable or facially ludicrous.  Despite years of repeating the same responses, it has obviously had no impact.

The first is the low rate of horses testing positive for illegal levels of medications in post-race tests.  The rate is a fraction of less than one percent.  That’s partially because testing is only for a limited amount of drugs because the cost of a more extensive regimen is, according to regulators, prohibitive.  There is also a wide range of drugs for which there is either no test or violators are adept at hiding their traces.

The second is the claim that racing has “one of the most stringent post-race drug testing programs in any professional sport,” as stated by NTRA’s CEO in response to the Real Sports segment.  We literally have to go back 41 years to the drug disqualification of Kentucky Derby winner Dancer’s Image to find a horse of equivalent stature to a Lance Armstrong or Robinson Cano penalized for a drug positive.

The key phrase, however, is “post-race drug testing.”  When racing authorities in the United States get serious about drugs, they will emulate  Europe and Hong Kong and have a meaningful program of Out-of-Competition Testing.  California has promised to strengthen their program.  New York’s program is virtually non-existent for thoroughbreds.

Then we have the “those questioning the devotion of horse people to their equine athletes need only to spend a morning walking barns to have such concerns alleviated” line,  also from NTRA’s CEO.  Well, I have spent hundreds of hours on backstretches and taken thousands of photographs.  I have the utmost respect for the hundreds of devoted horse people I have encountered (many of whom are Latino or Latina) who work long hours, often at low pay, and clearly love horses.  I could swear under oath I have never seen a horse mistreated.

I also have visited banks thousands of times and never seen a robbery or a bank executive committing fraud.  I would swear that under oath as well.  That only means that those committed to wrongdoing will do it out of the public eye.

One of the most remarkable refutations of this “feel good” narrative, however, comes from the Association of Racing Commissioners International.  It’s remarkable because of its tone-deaf inability to see one step ahead, let alone several.  Let’s just quote from the group’s May 6 press release:

“All racing regulatory commissions have been put on notice that the banning of voluntary race day furosemide (Lasix) … is expected to encourage a return to practices deemed cruel, inhumane, or potentially dangerous to the health and welfare of a horse. …

Last Friday, the RCI advised Regulatory Commissions to be on the lookout for horses being given intravenous formaldehyde to combat potential incidents of bleeding. …

The ARCI also advised commissions that it is anticipated that some horsemen will return to a practice … [that] denies a horse food and water for twenty-four to thirty-six hours prior to a race.”

So if you are going to see how well horses are treated, avoid those barns starving horses or injecting formaldehyde.

To complete their superfecta of ridiculous defenses, the national groups and their spokespeople also blame the media and those in the industry who, they portray, as negative voices seeking to harm the sport.  Blaming the messenger is never a long-term strategy, and impugning the integrity of many who have devoted their lives to the sport because they seek improvement is as short-sighted.

There are many positive steps being taken to improve the safety of both the horses and the humans who get on their backs.  The Stronach Group’s Belinda Stronach announced a number of significant reforms to address both possible causes of the fatalities and public perception problems in March, many of which were supported in Gavin Newsom’s statement.  There is also federal legislation that would put a national body in charge of administering anti-drug policies, the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

The most publicized reforms have to do with phasing out race-day Lasix and the use of the whip.  While neither may have caused any of the catastrophic injuries, anyone who has spoken with a non-racing fan realizes that these are important perception issues.  And to be clear, the discussion has gone beyond attracting new fans to the sport.  We need to prevent those non-fans from advocating the abolition of all racing.

The Rip Van Winkles leading the national racing organizations may not wake up in time to realize that their strategies are both useless and counter-productive.  They need to take serious steps to embrace meaningful reform.  Washington Post sports reporter Sally Jenkins recently wrote a devastating piece:

“Thoroughbred racing, more than all other sports, confronts the human participants with their own characters.  In any other game, you’re responsible only for yourself.  But racing is all about the handling of the horses:  At the heart of the contest is the matter of trust, the sacred obligation to do decently and right by reliant creatures.  It is the thinnest of lines between a meaningful pursuit and an abuse.  The minute a horse’s best advocate is a Washington politician is the minute that line has been crossed.”

There is a tipping point at which the impetus to abolish racing becomes an irreversible inevitability.  We are quickly approaching that point.  Maintaining a snail’s pace of progress is no longer going to be sufficient to keep racing going.  The time for urgency is now, and not when it will be too late.

Racing leaders continue to ignore drug problems

Posted by noonante on March 13, 2018
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . 1 Comment

The aversion of racing’s leaders to meaningful uniform anti-doping initiatives continues.  Most recently, the CEO of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Agency, Eric Hamelback, once again opposed federal legislation that would place racing under the authority of a national agency.  Unfortunately, Hamelback’s opposition was premised on a false statement of the content of the bill pending in Congress.

Writing in the Thoroughbred Daily News, Hamelback stated that the legislation “does not seek to place our industry into the hands of anti-doping experts with the ability to make common-sense distinctions between performance-enhancing drugs and those that aren’t.”  That is because, he says, the appointed members of the oversight Board “have nothing to do with our industry.”

The Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017 would create a national board to establish and enforce uniform anti-drugging policies.  It is, of course, highly controversial.  One of the foremost arguments against it by opponents has been that the United States Anti-Drugging Agency (USADA) is not equipped to expand its jurisdiction from human athletes to equine ones.

Hamelback continues to perpetrate this myth, but the actual language from the Congressional bill contradicts his assertion.  The bill creates a governing Board consisting of the USADA CEO, six additional members of the USADA board and the following members:

  • at least one with “expertise in equine anti-doping and medication control regulation;”
  • at least one with “significant experience as an owner” or with “expertise in the breeding of race horses;”
  • at least one “formerly employed as an executive with a racetrack;”
  • at least one vet with “expertise in equine veterinary practice with regard to race horses or expertise in veterinary research in matters affecting race horses;”
  • at least one with “expertise in training;” and,
  • at least one jockey.

The proposed law further requires USADA to solicit candidates from a “cross-section of equine industry representatives.”  Simply put, the proposed Board would have plenty of representation of experienced and knowledgeable racing professionals.

Hamelback cites what he views as the injustices perpetrated recently on trainers he believes to be above approach such as Rusty Arnold, Joe Sharp and Bill Mott, claiming that a federal oversight agency would not prevent the abuses.  The irony, however, is that he favors leaving in place the morass of some three dozen regulatory agencies that are the perpetrators of the injustices he cites.

Instead he advocates those who are outraged by inappropriate and unfair decisions to “get involved”  –  go to meetings, write letters, etc.  Of course, in order to make informed arguments, one needs facts.  I have no reason to question the integrity or innocence of any of the trainers cited in Hamelback’s piece.  But saying “Rusty Arnold is a good guy” is not a sufficient reason  –  nor should it be  –  to overturn a drug positive.  (The lab making the initial determination later discovered an error.)

The case with which I have the most familiarity is that of Bill Mott.  He was penalized for a positive, but New York, unlike many jurisdictions, not only does not require a split sample but apparently routinely destroys them.  Mott reportedly is now into six figures in legal fees and has taken his case to court after not getting redress before the Gaming Commission, the state’s regulatory body  –  the entity Hamelback seeks to retain.

I find the Mott case as I understand it to be an outrageous injustice because of New York’s continuing failure to remediate it.  But Hamelback’s inaccurate assessment that a new federal agency would lack knowledgeable representatives of the industry actually does apply to New York’s Gaming Commission.  I attended a public seminar conducted by the Commission on Lasix a couple of summers ago.  It was abundantly clear that the commissioners who bothered to attend had no familiarity with the issue.  That’s understandable given that the Commission has a broader jurisdiction than racing.  But there are also none of the experience requirements that Hamelback thinks are so essential  –  and that are contained in the Horseracing Integrity Act.

The lackadaisical attitude of Hamelback’s organization, the NHBPA, for meaningful medication reform could not be better exemplified than the agenda for their national convention now underway in New Orleans. Although it is a five-day conference, only two agenda items can be considered to be remotely connected to addressing racing drug issues.

On Thursday, there is a 25-minute (sic) session on the “Trainer All Insurer Rule.”  The next day, a two-hour session is entitled “Environmental Transfer, Cause for Concern in Racehorses:  Inadvertent Exposure to Recreational and Prescription Medications.”

I doubt that I am going too far out on the ledge to predict that both sessions will again repeat the tiresome nonsense that racing is overwhelmingly drug free as shown by the low rate of post-race positives.  Leaders such as Hamelback are among the few people involved with racing I have encountered who believe there is no problem worth a serious discussion.

 

 

Yet more black eyes for racing

Posted by noonante on September 16, 2017
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

The Sport of Kings took a couple of more hits this summer in publicized incidents that involved  —  wait for it  — illegal drug use on horses.

The most recent resulted from a YouTube video of trainer Jorge Navarro and owner Randal Gindi celebrating a win in Florida by Navarro’s brother, also a trainer.  As the horse neared the finish line, the pair were yelling “the Juice Man” and “that’s how we do it, we fuck everyone” and claiming to have pocketed $20,000 from a wager with a bookie.  (For those not conversant with common track parlance, “juice” refers to illegal drugs.)

The incident took place at a Monmouth Park bar.  The track’s stewards fined Gindi and Navarro $5,000 each for conduct “extremely detrimental to racing,” and recommended that the New Jersy’s regulatory body increase the penalty, since the stewards levied the maximum they could.

Navarro was Monmouth’s leading trainer this year with a record-breaking 65 wins, shattering the record he set last year with 59.  This year’s winning percentage was a remarkable 41%.  According to Frank Angst of BloodHorse.com, he has a history of drug positives, serving a 60-day suspension in 2011-12 in Florida, and now faces a hearing in Florida after one of his horses tested positive for cocaine.

As disturbing as this is, it was easily matched earlier this summer by a federal criminal trial in which Murray Rojas, twice the leading trainer at Penn National, was convicted of 14 felony counts for drug violations.  In trial testimony, another trainer, Stephanie Beattie, stated that she and between “95 and 98%” of other horsemen treated horses with illegal race-day medications, according to reporting by T.D. Thornton in TDN.com.

If you need more disturbing info on this, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, representing their opinion of the interests of trainers and owners, provided legal support for Rojas.  According to CEO Eric Hamelback, the NHBPA did so because of their view that the United States “Department of Justice overreached on what is clearly a state regulatory issue.”

While I suppose Hamelback can be praised for supporting the sovereignty clause of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, it seems to be a strange case on which to plant the flag.  Although in his statement he said the “court correctly found Ms. Rojas not guilty of charges related to this attempt to set a new legal precedent” on some charges, the allegations in the case, as well as the number of other individuals pleading guilty to related charges, belie his efforts to make her a sympathetic defendant.

According to the Paulick Report, Rojas was convicted on 14 of 21 felony counts covering a 12-year period.  Four veterinarians pled guilty after being confronted with allegations of backdated records and falsified records.  To overstate the obvious, we are not talking about an arguably innocent drug overage for one horse in one race.  The testimony of trainer Beattie, who became an FBI informant, was a particularly damning indictment of the racing at Penn National.

Rojas was twice the leading trainer at Penn.  Monmouth Park’s Jorge Navarro won five Monmouth training titles and twice broke the record for most wins during a meet.  His astonishing win percentage of 41% this year is one that naturally raises quite a few eyebrows.  As fellow trainer Eddie Plesa Jr. said to T.D. Thornton of TDN.com, Navarro “has a tremendous win percentage … you would have to look far and deep for anyone to say he’s that much superior to the rest of the trainers….”

That someone who’s winning percentage automatically draws suspicion of illegal drugging, and then yells in a track’s bar about juicing and “that’s how we do it” says little about either his intelligence or his commitment to the sport.  Perhaps NHBPA CEO Hamelback will determine that Navarro’s First Amendment rights warrant the expenditures of his organization’s financial resources.

As disturbing as these two instances are, even more troubling is the protective attitude of some of the industry’s top figures in dismissing allegations that the sport has a serious problem, both in reality and in perception.  A common refrain from these “leaders” is that there is no problem other than people speaking out about their perspective that there is a problem.  If they would be silent, there would no longer be an issue.

Unfortunately, there are few in the sport who, if speaking honestly, would deny that illegal drugging is a major problem.  And now we have two leading trainers who have brought that problem to the forefront  —  once again  — through a federal prosecution and shooting off one’s mouth in a public setting.