HBPA: Negotiations Between HISA And Sales Companies Equate To ‘Preferential Treatment’ For Breeders

Two days after the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) Authority disclosed at a press conference last week that it had initiated discussions with sales companies in an attempt to bring about voluntary compliance with medication policies throughout the lifetimes of Thoroughbreds, the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA) went on record with a letter filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit alleging that those efforts equate to improper rulemaking by the Authority and “preferential treatment” for breeders.

The purpose of the HISA Authority's Sept. 13 press conference was to go public with a months-in-the-making report on 12 horse deaths at Churchill Downs this past spring, and also for the Authority unveil a wide-ranging “strategic response plan” to predict and halt catastrophes before they occur. According to the report, which also listed numerous other safety proposals, the goal of entering into agreements with Thoroughbred auction houses would be “to more effectively align and coordinate our respective anti-doping and medication control [ADMC] programs.”

The purpose of the NHBPA's Sept. 15 legal filing, by contrast, was to let the court know that as the plaintiffs/appellants in a two-year-old lawsuit that is trying to derail HISA based on alleged constitutional violations, the NHBPA and 12 of its affiliates believed that by entering into such negotiations with sales companies, “the Authority has announced its intention to add another line to the already long list of 20-plus examples of the Authority writing the rules for the industry without going through the rulemaking process.”

The two-page letter written by the NHBPA's attorney, Daniel Suhr, prefaced its legal criticisms of the Authority's discussions with sales companies by first stating that, “The NHBPA Appellants appreciate the policy goal to ensure effective ADMC standards that include breeders: as the advocate for owners of horses, they support measures that ensure full and accurate information from breeders for buyers.

“But as a legal matter, two things are obvious from the announcement,” the NHBPA letter continued. “First, one section of the industry that is included in the scope of the Act is receiving preferential treatment-the breeders get to negotiate their rules through voluntary agreements while other sectors like trainers and racetracks have rules imposed upon them by Authority fiat.

“And second, once again the Authority is engaged in regulatory activity outside the rulemaking process. When the Authority enters into a 'voluntary agreement' with a breeding company, it is not required to publish or publicize the text of that agreement (or provide it if requested through FOIA), receive and consider public comment (including feedback from other affected equine constituencies), or run it by the Federal Trade Commission [FTC],” the NHBPA letter stated.

The allegations by the NHBPA were filed with oral arguments in the highly anticipated Fifth Circuit appeals case coming up soon, on Oct. 4.

A lower federal court already ruled back on May 4 that the rewritten HISA law that went into effect Dec. 29, 2022, is indeed constitutional because it fixes the problems the Fifth Circuit had identified in an earlier version of the law. The NHBPA plaintiffs are arguing for another reversal.

The points of law raised by the NHBPA's Sept. 15 letter, however, won't be considered by the court in their current format.

That's because the letter did not meet the standard for the type of filing that notifies the court of pertinent and significant findings after a party's brief has been filed, according to a docket entry made by the court clerk on Sept. 15. “Therefore, we are taking no action on this letter,” the clerk stated.

If the NHBPA wants its comments on the issue to be considered, the clerk's notation continued,  “A motion seeking leave to file a supplemental brief is required.”

Regardless of its status, the letter was made public within the docket once the court refused to take action on it, and its contents are important to the broader world of horse racing because the objections over the sales company discussions underscore both the ongoing and newly developing rifts between the NHBPA plaintiffs and the HISA and FTC defendants.

A chief point of contention between the two parties is that the Authority has stated that it will negotiate (rather than propose and implement) ADMC rules upon sales companies because its interpretation of the law is that some young horses sold as auction aren't yet “covered horses” under HISA.

Speaking at the Sept. 13 press conference, Lisa Lazarus, HISA's chief executive officer, explained that “a horse becomes a HISA [covered] horse after it's had its first public workout, first timed workout. So some of the 2-year-old sales would certainly fall under HISA's purview. The weanlings and yearlings wouldn't.”

But, Lazarus added last week, “I think we're at the point where if HISA leads the way that we should, and the way that we intend to, that we'll be able to motivate the industry to come under one kind of comprehensive, understandable, kind of ADMC approach.”

The NHBPA, on the other hand, wrote in a footnote to its Sept. 15 letter that under its reading of HISA, it believes breeders do qualify as “covered persons,” and that breeders as a group are included “among equine constituencies.” Thus, the plaintiffs' argument goes, it's allegedly not fair for one sector of covered persons to have a say in negotiating rules while other covered persons don't.

Asked on Sept. 18 if the HISA Authority would like to comment on the NHBPA's assertions in the letter, an Authority spokesperson wrote in an email that, “The NHBPA overlooks the fact that Congress decided that Thoroughbred horses are not covered horses under the Act until their 'first timed and reported workout.' Therefore, it is necessary for the sales companies to voluntarily agree so that we could effectively align and coordinate our respective ADMC programs throughout the lifetime of a horse.”

The post HBPA: Negotiations Between HISA And Sales Companies Equate To ‘Preferential Treatment’ For Breeders appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Foreman to Donate Ombudsman Salary to TAA

Alan Foreman, the recently appointed ombudsman on behalf of HISA's rules with a primary focus on the Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) Program, will donate all compensation paid to him by both groups in connection with his duties as ombudsman to the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance (TAA), according to a press release from the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Authority.

Foreman is a leading racing law and equine attorney in the U.S. with expertise in medication, drug testing, equine safety and welfare. He is counsel to many horsemen's and racing industry organizations and was recently named by Maryland Governor Wes Moore to the newly created Maryland Thoroughbred Racetrack Operating Authority.

The post Foreman to Donate Ombudsman Salary to TAA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HISA In Depth: The Procedures Surrounding A Provisional Suspension

Editor's note: This is the latest in a series in the TDN to help industry members better understand the procedures under the new HISA and HIWU regulations.

TDN: Please explain the rules on what happens during a Provisional Suspension. Are my employees still allowed to care for my horses? Can my assistant trainer be in charge? Or do I have to have them moved to an entirely new barn with new help?

HISA:It is true that there have been some changes in the procedures surrounding a Provisional Suspension, along with a lot of misinformation. Here is what happens when your horse tests positive for a Banned (not Controlled) Substance.

First, when you receive notification of a positive test, you can decide if you want to have the split, or B sample, tested.

If you do want to have it tested:

  • Your Provisional Suspension will not start until your B sample result comes back. During this time, you may continue to train and race your horses without interruption.
  • You must pay the B sample analysis fee ($2,000) within seven calendar days of requesting it. In cases of financial hardship, a payment plan may be available.
  • If your B sample result does not confirm the A sample finding, the case against you is dismissed and you are refunded the $2,000 for the B sample analysis.
  • If your B sample result confirms the A, you will be allowed to race any horses that you had already entered prior to notification of the B sample confirmation. In all other respects, your Provisional Suspension goes into effect when you are notified of the B sample results.

If you do not want to have the B sample tested:

  • You may race any horses entered to race prior to Notification of the positive test.
  • However, in all other respects, your Provisional Suspension goes into effect when you either waive your right to have the B sample tested or do not notify HIWU of your decision within five days of being notified of the A sample result.

It should be noted that there are exceptions to the opportunity to postpone the implementation of a Provisional Suspension:

  • There is a subset of Banned Substances that will trigger an immediate Provisional Suspension upon notice of the A sample result.
  • If a trainer has more than one horse test positive for the same Banned Substance within a six-month period or has received notices for potential violations related to a Banned Substance in addition to a positive test result (e.g., possession or use), they are not eligible for the delayed imposition of a Provisional Suspension.

TDN: What happens when your Provisional Suspension goes into effect?

HISA: You and your staff can continue looking after the horses under your care, however, these horses cannot breeze or be entered to race unless they are transferred to another responsible person (a trainer, for example) in a bona fide transfer approved by the stewards and registered in the HISA Portal.

You also:
a) must take down or cover any personal signage bearing your name or related to your operations where horses are located at the racetrack
b) cannot claim horses or bring new horses into your barn
c) cannot be employed within the Thoroughbred horseracing industry in any other capacity where you come into contact with covered horses (including, but not limited to acting as an agent for an owner or working as an exercise rider.
d) After the imposition of the Provisional Suspension, you can request a Provisional Suspension Hearing (limited to the issue of whether to lift the suspension) or a final hearing to conclude your case as soon as possible. A Provisional Suspension Hearing may be convened as soon as 48 hours after it is requested.

TDN: How long is my suspension for a banned substance?

HISA: A first offense for the presence (positive test result) or possession of a Banned Substance may result in a suspension of up to two years. The suspension may be shortened based on the specific circumstances of the case.

For example, the arbitrator hearing a case may issue a shorter suspension in their Final Decision based on the Covered Person's degree of fault for the positive test result or possession.

Suspensions may also be shortened if, the Covered Person:
1) agrees to an admission and acceptance of Consequences, or
2) provides Substantial Assistance to HIWU.

Time served under a Provisional Suspension is counted toward any final suspension (period of Ineligibility).

 

The post HISA In Depth: The Procedures Surrounding A Provisional Suspension appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Weekly Stewards And Commissions Rulings, Aug. 15-21

Every week, the TDN publishes a roundup of key official rulings from the primary tracks within the four major racing jurisdictions of California, New York, Florida and Kentucky.

Here's a primer on how each of these jurisdictions adjudicates different offenses, what they make public (or not) and where.

The TDN will also post a roundup of the relevant Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) related rulings from the same week. These will include decisions from around the country.

California
Track: Del Mar
Date: 08/17/2023
Licensee: Tiago Pereira, jockey
Penalty: Three-day suspension
Violation: Careless riding
Explainer: Jockey Tiago Pereira, who rode Legislator in the eighth race at Del Mar Race Track on August 13, 2023, is suspended for 3 racing days (August 24, 25 and 26, 2023) for altering course without sufficient clearance in the stretch, causing interference resulting in the disqualification of his mount from first to sixth; a violation of California Horse Racing Board rule #1699 (Riding Rules – careless riding).

New York
Track: Saratoga
Date: 08/19/2023
Licensee: Jose Lezcano, jockey
Penalty: Three-day suspension
Violation: Careless riding
Explainer: Jockey Mr. Jose Lezcano having waived his right to an appeal is hereby suspended three (3) NYRA racing days August 23rd 2023, through August 25th 2023 inclusive. This for careless riding during the running of the 9th race at Saratoga Racecourse on August 17th 2023.

Track: Saratoga
Date: 08/20/2023
Licensee: Rafael Bejarano, jockey
Penalty: Three-day suspension
Violation: Careless riding
Explainer: Jockey Mr. Rafael Bejarano having waived his right to an appeal is hereby suspended three (3) NYRA racing days August 26th 2023, August 27th 2023, August 30th 2023 inclusive. This for careless riding during the running of the 9th race at Saratoga Racecourse on August 19th 2023. See the story here.

NEW HISA/HIWU STEWARDS RULINGS
The following rulings were reported on HISA's “rulings” portal and through the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit's “pending” and “resolved” cases portals.

This does not include the voided claim rulings which were sent to the TDN directly. Some of these rulings are from prior weeks as they were not reported contemporaneously.

One important note: HISA's whip use limit is restricted to six strikes during a race.

Violations of Crop Rule
Belterra Park
Jose Lopez – violation date Aug 16; $250 fine, no other records

Delaware Park
Augusto Ali Marin – violation date Aug 16; $250 fine, no other records
Carol Dyann Cedeno – violation date Aug 17; $250 fine, no other records

Horseshoe Indianapolis
Hannah Leahey – violation date Aug 15; $250 fine, no other records
Santo Sanjur – violation date Aug 16; $250 fine, no other records
Emmanuel Esquivel – violation date Aug 19; $250 fine, no other records

Presque Isle Downs
Jose Lucio Riquelme  – violation date Aug 15; $250 fine, no other records
Wilfredo Martinez – violation date Aug 15; $250 fine, no other records
Gary John Wales – violation date Aug 15; $250 fine, no other records
Heman Kumar Harkie – violation date Aug 17; $250 fine, no other records

Pending ADMC Violations
Date: 07/31/2023
Licensee: Steve Asmussen, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged Violation: Intra-articular injection
Explainer: A possible violation of Rule 3314—Use or Attempted Use of a Controlled Medication Substance or a Controlled Medication Method—on the horse, Bramito. This is also a possible violation of Rule 4222–Intra-Articular Injections Within Seven (7) Days of Timed and Reported Workout

Date: 07/21/2023
Licensee: Kenneth Cox, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged Violation: Medication violation
Explainer: For the presence of Phenylbutazone—Controlled Medications (Class C)—in a sample taken from Not as Lucky as Us, who won at Colonial Downs on 7/21/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

Date: 07/20/2023
Licensee: Arnoud Dobber, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged Violation: Medication violatio
Explainer: For the presence of Acepromazine—Controlled Medications (Class B)—in a sample taken from Coyote Runner. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

Date: 07/19/2023
Licensee: David Reid, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged Violation: Medication violation
Explainer: For the presence of Phenylbutazone—Controlled Medications (Class C)—in a sample taken from Grand Hideaway, who won at Hawthorne on 7/19/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

Date: 07/17/2023
Licensee: Troy Smith, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged Violation: Medication violation
Explainer: For the presence of Phenylbutazone—Controlled Medications (Class C)—in a sample taken from Rattleme, who won at Finger Lakes on 7/17/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

Date: 07/13/2023
Licensee: Christophe Clement, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged Violation: Medication violation
Explainer: For the presence of Dantrolene—Controlled Medications (Class C)—in a sample taken from My Royal Vow. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

Date: 07/07/2023
Licensee: Candice Cryderman, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged Violation: Medication violation
Explainer: For the presence of Methocarbamol—Controlled Medication (Class C)—in a sample taken from Dontforgetthesuga, who finished third at Emerald Downs on 7/7/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

Date: 07/07/2023
Licensee: Lynn Rarick, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged Violation: Medication violation
Explainer: For the presence of Methocarbamol—Controlled Medication (Class C)—in a sample taken from Calzone, who finished third at Canterbury Downs on 6/20/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

Licensee: Peter Miller, trainer
Penalty: Pending
Alleged Violation: Three medication violations
Explainer: For the presence of Acepromazine—Controlled Medication (Class B)—in samples taken from Forgiving Spirit, who finished second at Santa Anita on 6/11/23; from Anmer Hall, who won at Santa Anita on 6/4/23; and from Giver Not a Taker, who finished fourth at Santa Anita on 6/4/23. These are possible violations of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

Resolved ADMC Violations
Date: 07/18/2023
Licensee: Roberto Lopez, trainer
Penalty: 7-day period of Ineligibility beginning on August 16, 2023; Disqualification of Covered Horse's Race results, including forfeiture of all purses and other compensation, prizes, trophies, points, and rankings and repayment or surrender (as applicable); a fine of $1,000; imposition of 2 Penalty Points.
Alleged Violation: For the presence of Lidocaine—Controlled Medication (Class B)—in a sample taken from Hardly Working, who finished sixth at Finger Lakes on 7/18/23. This is a possible violation of Rule 3312—Presence of Controlled Medication Substance and/or its Metabolites or Markers.

The post Weekly Stewards And Commissions Rulings, Aug. 15-21 appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights