The Jockey Club

All posts tagged The Jockey Club

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.

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.

 

 

 

 

Digging beneath the racetrack surface debate

Posted by noonante on April 9, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing. Tagged: , , , , , , , . 2 Comments

With last week’s decision by Keeneland to switch from a synthetic surface to dirt coming just two days after The Jockey Club released statistics on the safety of different track surfaces, the health of racehorses is again going to dominate discussions in the sport.  The statistics are from the Equine Injury Database maintained by The Jockey Club, and summarize fatality rates by track surface, age of the horse and distance of a race.

Almost 2 million starts covering the five-year period ending in 2013 were analyzed.  Overall, there were 1.91 racing-related fatalities per 1,000 starts.  On synthetic surfaces the rate was 1.22 while the rate on dirt tracks was 2.08.  The rate on turf courses was 1.63.

While the comparative statistics have been well-known for some time, the decision by Keeneland to revert to dirt coming soon after Del Mar’s decision to do the same, has already fueled controversy about the industry’s concern for the well-being of its athletes, both equine and human.  And it arises just two weeks after the PETA video and accompanying article by Joe Drape in The New York Times.

As with many aspects of racing  –  to say nothing of life in general  –  things are rarely as simple as they may seem at first glance.  Nationally-prominent equine veterinarians say that a dirt surface can be as safe as a synthetic one.  Dr. Scott Palmer, now the Equine Medical Director for New York’s Gaming Commission, said as much during a discussion of track surfaces at the April meeting of the Equine Safety Committee of the New York Racing Association.  Dr. Mary Scollay, Equine Medical Director for Kentucky’s Horse Racing Commission concurs, observing that it is a big mistake to just look at whether a surface is dirt or synthetic.

Then there is Michael “Mick” Peterson, Ph.D., the country’s preeminent expert on racing surfaces.  He is a co-author of a collection of published scientific papers and data that is on The Jockey Club web site entitled, appropriately enough, “Racing Surfaces White Paper.”  The complexity of the topic is evident as one reads through this document, and I do not intend to describe it in any detail.  Suffice it to say that for dirt and turf courses, “moisture is the single most important variable in the maintenance of the surface.”  When it is a synthetic surface, temperature becomes the key variable because of the effect it has on the wax that is a component of such a track.

If you are like me, knowledge of the effect of moisture is watching a track being harrowed and then seeing watering trucks circle the track between races.  I assumed the watering was about as scientific as my using a hose in the garden.  But then I learned from Dr. Peterson what he does for Churchill Downs during Derby weekend.  I do not remember the exact number of points on the track that are tested for moisture content, but it was well in excess of a hundred.  Similarly, the NYRA maintenance staff has a sophisticated method for measuring the moisture content around the entire track.  This permits the scientific application of moisture to provide the safest surface.

One of the benefits of The Jockey Club’s statistical analysis is that it provides a detailed account, by year, of fatalities by surface, age and race distance at specific tracks.  At least it does for those tracks that voluntarily provide such information.  The NYRA tracks did, and so did Frank Stronach’s facilities (Santa Anita, Gulfstream and Pimlico).  By contrast, Churchill Downs did not for its tracks  –  Churchill Downs, Calder and Arlington. That added detail provides some very useful insights.  Keeping in mind that the fatality rate per 1,000 starts on all synthetic surfaces is 1.22, we learn the following:

  • Woodbine in Toronto may be the safest track in North America.  Its rate for each of the five years, including both turf and a synthetic surface, never exceeded 1.19 and the overall rate for the five years was 0.90.
  • Keeneland’s rate on the synthetic surface ranged from a high of 1.39 in 2012 to a low of 0.43 last year.
  • Del Mar’s synthetic also demonstrated a wide range over the five years, exceeding the national average three years, topping out at 2.39 in 2012, but being 0.51 in 2011 and 0.48 in 2013.
  • Pimlico’s dirt exceeded the overall synthetic rate each year and Gulfstream dirt did in four of the five years.
  • Santa Anita, which switched back to dirt near the end of 2010, saw its synthetic rates of 0.90 and 0.57 escalate to 2.94, 2.89 and 2.11 in the subsequent years.
  • Belmont’s dirt rate fell below the synthetic standard in only one of the five years, coming in at 0.88 in 2013.
  • Saratoga experienced a 1.92 in 2010, but bookended that with a 0.00 in 2009 and 0.57 in 2011.  It was 1.23 and 1.29 the last two years.
  • Aqueduct’s two dirt surface showed considerable variety.  The inner track never fell below the rate of 2.08 for all dirt tracks.  If you do not count the aberrant year of 2012 (4.02), the rates hovered in the area of 2.40 with the highest figure of that four-year grouping being 2.47 in 2013.  The main track varied from 0.81 to 3.19.  The rate of 0.81 is from 2013 and is about the same as the 0.87 realized in 2009.

Clearly this more detailed data demonstrates that, as a general proposition, there have been fewer fatalities on a synthetic surface.  It also shows, however, that a dirt track can be as safe.  The overall five-year rate for Woodbine’s synthetic was 0.95;  for the Keeneland poly it was 0.97.  Saratoga’s rate on its dirt surface was 0.99.  Del Mar’s synthetic, by comparison, was 1.45 for the five years.

By chance I was reading a post last week on a completely different subject and came across a quote by H.L. Mencken:  “For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”  While it is easy to criticize the Keeneland decision, the real challenge for racing is to make every surface as safe as possible.  The industry has the wherewithal to accomplish that  –  the only question is whether it has the will.