USADA

All posts tagged USADA

Is HISA already unraveling?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Emphasis is mine.)

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

A look back inspired by social distancing

Posted by noonante on March 22, 2020
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

This seems like a good opportunity to embark on any number of projects an inveterate procrastinator can acquire.  I have been in desperate need of cleaning out and reorganizing my files, so I grabbed a big one thinking I would be able to toss many of the clippings in it.

So I took the one labeled “Drugs I.”  This is from back in the day when I thought a single file could contain several years of reporting on that topic.  Nowadays, they are labeled “Drugs 2019, file 1,”  “Drugs 2019, file 2,” etc.  Since this file had articles from 2012 and 2013, I assumed I would be tossing most of them.

I did get rid of some, but here are some titles of ones that were unfortunately resonant:

  •   “A Derby Win, but a Troubled Record for a Trainer,”  New York Times, May 10, 2012;
  •   “Facing horse racing’s drug problem,”  ESPN.com, June 1, 2012;
  •   “Facing the leadership deficit,”  ESPN.com, August 14, 2012;
  •   “Medication Reform Takes Step Toward Reality,”  BloodHorse.com, December 14, 2012;
  •  “On Salix, Kentucky Feeling Alone on Ledge,”  BloodHorse.com, March 14, 2013;
  •  “Lasix ban:  Breeders’ Cup hand forced by waning support,”  DRF.com, March 21, 2013;
  •   “Handicapping Dopers at the Racetrack,”  New York Times, August 16, 2013;
  •  “Medication Reforms Carry Sense of Urgency,”   BloodHorse.com, August 13, 2013;
  •  “Law Panelists Note Progress in Drug Reform,”  BloodHorse.com, August 13, 2013;
  •  “Sheikh Mohammed launches inquiry after police seize drugs from Dubai jet,”  The Guardian, September 29, 2013;
  •   “Uniform medication reform again a major topic at Round Table,”  DRF, August 13, 2013;
  •   “Racing’s credibility on line over lack of doping transparency,”  independent,ie, December 9, 2013;
  •   And, my favorite:  “Time for racing leaders to get their heads out of the sand,”  TDN link to tenoonan.com, December 11, 2013.

I am guessing the only ones not disturbed by that listing are those who have successfully resisted or slow-walked any meaningful reform in a sport desperately in need of a significant overhaul.  I did not get a headline that reflected the remarks of Travis Tygart, head of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, at the 2012 Jockey Club Round Table.  But it is a sad reminder of how long an alternative that could save racing as a sport has been out there.

There are some sidelights that make the above-list even more disturbing.  The first is that the 2012 Derby reference means that in three of the last eight Kentucky Derbies there have been questions about impermissible drugs by the trainers of horses who crossed the finish line in first place.

The other is the reference to Sheikh Mohammed, head of racing’s most powerful operation, and the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates.  The Guardian reports that “[t]housands of pounds worth of unlicensed products  –  including steroidal injections, anaesthetics and anti-inflammatories that have been described a ‘potentially toxic and dangerous to horses’  –  were seized and destroyed by the UK Border Agency….”  The investigator appointed by the Sheikh to conduct the investigation is his wife, Princess Haya.  While she is indeed a respected horse person in her own right, it’s his wife.

The sad part of this is that any of those headlines could have been written this year  –  except, of course, for ones suggesting progress on drug reform efforts.  Racing is living on borrowed time, and the time for changes was evident eight years ago.

 

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.