Statement On HISA’s Anti-Doping Rules From ARCI

The Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) has formally asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to set aside and temporarily not approve proposed anti-doping and medication control rules proposed by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) until the constitutionality of the HISA Act is determined by the Courts.

“This has nothing to do with wanting uniform rules or having a central rule-making authority, two things the ARCI supports,” said Ed Martin, ARCI President. “This all has to do with avoiding a situation where an enforcement action is overturned because the authority of the enforcing entity to act is in question. The potential exposure to the entire sport is avoided by leaving the existing state rules and enforcement in place until this gets sorted out.”

The ARCI Board voted unanimously to make a similar request in early December and the FTC shortly thereafter rejected the proposed HISA rules without prejudice citing reasons of the underlying legal uncertainty. With the Fifth Circuit Court's rejection earlier this week of HISA's petition based on changes made recently to the Act, the potential for regulatory chaos remains.

The filing made today reads as follows:

“ARCI requests that the FTC yet again reject the Rules or, at the very least, withhold decision until all legal challenges to the Act are finally adjudicated. As you might know, in addition to the federal court case that led to the Fifth Circuit's ruling, other litigations raising material questions about the legitimacy and constitutionality of the Act remain pending. Moreover, after HISA resubmitted the proposed Rules, the Fifth Circuit denied HISA and the FTC's petition to vacate the court's earlier ruling and for a rehearing, meaning two important things: (1) by mandate of the Fifth Circuit, the preliminary injunction prohibiting HISA enforcement in states within the Fifth Circuit will return to full effect and no longer be stayed; and (2) the Fifth Circuit's decision that the Act is unconstitutional will stand for the time being.

Once again, the FTC is in a unique position to restore some level of regulatory certainty to the horse-racing industry. It should do so by quickly and publicly announcing what it already determined a few weeks ago–that it will not approve HISA's proposed rules at this time. A decision to the contrary would come at too great a cost, as it would lead to regulatory uncertainty, exacerbate existing confusion throughout the horse-racing industry, and seriously compromise public interests.”

Should the FTC approve the HISA rules and penalties were imposed for a violation of those rules, the action could be appealed and potentially overturned and wiped away due to the finding in the Fifth Circuit that HISA is unconstitutional.

Likewise if a racing commission enforces the existing State anti-doping rule and penalties imposed for a violation are appealed using the argument that the federal rule preempts state action the possibility that it can be overturned also exists.

The only way to avoid this Catch-22 is to leave state rules and enforcement in place by delaying final action on the HISA ADMC rules.

The ARCI has not taken a position on the pending litigation, although some member states have and are litigating the constitutionality of the Act. In August, Martin called for HISA to sit down with all litigants and negotiate a way out. That did not happen.

The post Statement On HISA’s Anti-Doping Rules From ARCI appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

FTC Publishes Resubmitted HISA Anti-Doping and Medication Control Rules

Edited Press Release

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has published the resubmitted Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) rules to the Federal Register, initiating a 14-day public comment period, according to a press release from HISA Friday morning. The FTC now has 60 days to approve or deny the proposed rules.

HISA's draft ADMC rules were initially rejected by the FTC in late 2022 due to ongoing legal uncertainties. HISA resubmitted the rules for consideration by the FTC to give the agency more authority over HISA in order to address constitutional questions raised by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That bill passed both houses of Congress in December and was signed into law by President Biden.

Now that the rules have been resubmitted and posted to the Federal Register, HISA said that they anticipated that its ADMC Program would go into effect March 27, 2023, pending FTC approval. The resubmitted rules include a small number of minor revisions from the version submitted in August, 2022. A clean version of the proposed rules is available on the Federal Register now and a red-lined version will be available on HISA's website within the next 48 hours, the Authority said. In its December, 2022 order, the FTC stated it would consider all previously posted comments on the Federal Register as well as any updated or new comments.

Upon implementation, the ADMC Program will be administered and enforced by the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit (HIWU). The development of the ADMC rules included an initial public comment period, numerous open discussions and meetings with industry organizations and individuals, as well as the careful consideration of more than 200 comments submitted by racing participants and the general public.

Included in the rules package are the Equine Anti-Doping and Controlled Medication Protocol, the Prohibited List, Definitions, Arbitration Procedures, Equine Testing and Investigation Standards, and Equine Standards for Laboratories and Accreditation.

“The establishment of uniform, nationwide anti-doping rules in Thoroughbred racing will strongly enhance the safety and integrity of our sport and is a step many in our industry have long advocated for,” said HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus. “The health and safety of horses is our paramount concern, and the consistent enforcement and efficient resolution of rule violations will transform how we protect our equine athletes. We deeply value the input we've received from racing participants throughout the development of these rules, and I encourage all participants to continue to share their thoughts with us moving forward.”

HISA's ADMC Program will advance and modernize anti-doping practices across the sport with components including out-of-competition testing, uniform lab accreditation, a uniform results management process, a robust intelligence and investigations arm and consistent penalties.

As HIWU prepares for the ADMC Program's launch, the organization will continue to publish and share educational material with industry stakeholders, available at hiwu.org, and will host meetings with groups of racing participants to further educate on the new rules and answer questions.

The post FTC Publishes Resubmitted HISA Anti-Doping and Medication Control Rules appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Lisa Lazarus Talks HISA Budget

Early last week, a bill landed on the doorsteps of the nation's state racing commissions containing their portion of the money needed to fund the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) remit for next year.

The total $72,509,662 amount is broken down four main ways:

  • $58,108,758 to run the anti-doping and medication control (ADMC) program overseen by the newly minted Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU);
  • $3,654,830 towards HISA's racetrack safety program, which initially went into effect on July 1 this year;
  • $5,466,709 to continue building the technology needed to support HISA's programs;
  • And $5,279,365 for administrative and organizational costs, with $1.8 million of that budgeted for litigation expenses.

That $72.5 million figure doesn't necessarily have to be the final total. The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority–the non-profit umbrella established by HISA to broadly oversee the national program–has offered state racing commissions approximately $23 million in monetary credits against the assessment.

“These credits are available to [state racing commissions] who choose to provide sample collection personnel and investigative services (including stewards involved in investigations) in compliance with the new Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) Program rules,” a HISA press release stated.

To dig down into the particulars, the TDN spoke earlier this week with HISA CEO, Lisa Lazarus.

The Primer

The financial assessments recently sent to individual state rate commissions form a “worst-case scenario” budget “if nobody works with us and we can't hold onto any of that money,” explained Lazarus.

In other words, that $72.5-million figure is the sum total to the industry if no states reach an agreement with HISA and HIWU to continue performing many common anti-doping and medication control program tasks like sample collection and certain investigative duties.

All state commissions could, of course, deicide to fund their portion in full. But for those jurisdictions that reach an agreement with HISA and HIWU, they will likely want to offset some of those costs through the $23 million in credits on offer.

Credits are based, said Lazarus, on how much it would cost the Authority to fill a designated position, rather than what it currently costs the commission for the same role.

And because such a calculation isn't necessarily a 1:1 trade-off–and because many commission personnel often perform more than one task–Lazarus said that she believes the credit system largely plays to a commission's financial advantage.

“Let's say Kentucky's spending $1 million dollars a year on sample collectors,” said Lazarus, using a hypothetical number. “If we had to go in there and hire all new collectors from scratch, we'd actually have to pay $1.5 million. A lot of those state collectors might [also] do other things for the state.”

More broadly, HISA will assume other financial burdens come Jan. 1, including investigation costs, laboratory fees and shipping costs, as well as legal expenses associated with prosecuting ADMC program violations.

But this leads to a potential conundrum for some commissions whose budgets were finalized many months ago in the state legislature when HISA's 2023 budget was unknown, and who, in some circumstances, might have already accounted financially for these costs, including for personnel.

In response, Lazarus pointed in a follow-up statement to the available HISA budget relief, and added, “It's been clear for months that HISA's ADMC program would be going into effect by January 1, 2023. Our goal is that some processes and staffing that have been in place in the past can be re-purposed in collaboration with HIWU so we're all being as efficient and strategic about the transition as possible.”

Ultimately, per Lazarus's calculations, the additional cost of the federal program to the entire industry is roughly $20 to $25 million more than what is currently spent nationally, and she calls those extra monies the cost of “automating and professionalizing a national program.”

Said Lazarus, “That's a relatively small amount, in my view, to invest in safety and integrity to protect a sport that has so much potential.”

Opting Out

Fourteen different jurisdictions are scheduled to host racing on Jan. 1, when the new anti-doping and medication control program goes into effect. And these respective states have until Nov. 17 to decide whether or not to enter into an agreement with HISA and HIWU.

The others will be required to make that agreement decision later down the line, proportionate to the date of their first scheduled 2023 race meet. So far, said Lazarus, no individual states have entered into a voluntary agreement.

On the flip side, only Ohio has so far officially opted out, said Lazarus.

For those commissions that shun a voluntary agreement, HISA's monetary assessment falls onto the shoulders of the respective tracks–a figure which, among all the tracks in the state, is no larger than what had been assessed each respective commission. All sample collections in that state will also become HIWU's responsibility.

The amount charged each track is based on a per-start calculation that factors in numbers of starts and the total purses paid out.

As such, the per-start calculation can vary quite wildly between different tracks, with Los Alamitos charged a per start fee of around $85 and Kentucky Downs looking at a fee of over $1,000 per start. Churchill Downs would face the largest overall assessment if the state commission opts-out of an agreement–nearly $3.9 million.

Furthermore, “if the state opts out, they lose the opportunity for the monetary credit,” said Lazarus. But she added that there are possible avenues for individual tracks or racing associations to unilaterally enter into agreements with HISA to access some of the $23 million in credits.

A track, for example, could form a not-for-profit organization–similar in effect to the New York Racing Association–and hire their own team to conduct tasks like sample collection.

“We're open to any agreement,” said Lazarus, mirroring HISA's approach for the race-track safety portion of the program. “We've had to be really creative because every state is different, and we have to be sensitive to that.”

Which leads to perhaps the most urgent question: Will HISA have enough adequately trained personnel to fill the required positions among those states that opt-out before Jan. 1?

“We've been working very hard on recruiting and getting the workforces in place so that we don't miss a beat on Jan. 1,” said Lazarus.

She is unsure, however, which of the 14 jurisdictions scheduled to race on Jan. 1 will opt-in or out beforehand, stressing how the financial assessments have only very recently been issued.

That said, “I think I can predict with a fair amount of certainty–maybe give or take one or two states–on who's going to enter into an agreement and who's not,” said Lazarus, pointing out how 18 of the 23 individual states entered into an agreement of sorts with HISA for the racetrack safety portion of the program.

Not all agreements were identical, however, and it's believed that only about a handful of states shouldered their racetrack safety costs in full.

Other Budget Components

HISA has priced the entire cost of sample collection, laboratory analysis, enforcement, and other program costs at around $58 million.

Lazarus pinned the laboratory costs alone at around $18.7 million. This is in comparison to estimated national laboratory costs of between $13.2 and $13.8 million from a few years ago.

HIWU can tap all laboratories currently accredited by the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC) for adoption into the ADMC program. Laboratory contracts have yet to be inked though, said Lazarus. “I think they're pretty far along,” she added, about those negotiations.

“What I'll tell you is that the strategy and the focus is on smart intelligence-based and investigation-based testing,” she said, adding that, “I actually think you'll see an increase in out-of-competition testing almost everywhere, because that's going to be an important component of the new testing plan.”

Lazarus demurred, however, when asked if this scenario could also lead to a potential reduction in post-race testing among those states with currently the most rigorous post-race testing programs.

A key part of HISA's intelligence-based investigatory approach appears to be the use of technology and centralized databases. For this, HISA has budgeted around $5.4 million for next year.

The racetrack safety database is, of course, already up and running, though Lazarus said that it's constantly being tweaked and improved. She also said that the database for the ADMC program will be “ready to go” on Jan. 1.

At least initially, the ADMC database will compile information like the responsible person in the event of a violation, their charges, case status and the eventual rulings.

HISA has also budgeted $1.8 million next year for the costs associated with fighting the four suits seeking to derail the law. In the event HISA succeeds in court, could it seek cost recovery from the plaintiffs?

“I'm going to leave that one for lawyers,” Lazarus responded. “I do know they have looked into it and we're evaluating our options there.”

Other Stakeholder Questions

The TDN spoke with several stakeholders around the country to canvas other questions and concerns about the budget and the impending roll-out of the ADMC program. The key questions are posted below along with Lazarus's response.

 

Q: Even if a jurisdiction enters into an agreement with HISA for next year, could some current state commission positions be culled, made redundant through efficiencies made in the national program?

“Obviously, many responsibilities will no longer be on the shoulders of the racing commissions, but don't forget they still have other breeds like Standardbreds and Quarter Horses,” she said.

“How all of that works out, it's hard for me to say at this stage, but I think you're probably right philosophically that we'll continue to see efficiencies in this space as we work towards a national uniform professionalized system, but one that's also as cost-efficient as we can make it.”

Q: What can you tell stakeholders in those states with the highest HISA assessments who feel as though they're essentially subsidizing the high volume racing, low purse states?

“The HISA board approved a cost-assessment methodology that equally weighed starts and strength of purse. If you didn't have that methodology, you'd have states like Pennsylvania paying more than Kentucky. The statute requires us to be equitable, and it felt to the board that was the place you would land on equity,” said Lazarus.

“They may have potentially an outsized role to play in their view now, but they also have a tremendous amount to gain because when a horse dies or tests positive in a state that maybe doesn't have the same integrity and safety [protocols] in place as some of the bigger, stronger states, that hurts horse racing everywhere,” Lazarus added.

“At the end of the day, if HISA works as it should, it should form a protective ring around the industry and give it a stronger foundation with which to build.”

Q: HISA statute precludes state commissions from billing a track or association for the same services that fall under HISA's purview. What will HISA do to do to prevent this from happening?

“There was some discussion about this around the racetrack safety program and where it came up, we just stepped in and said, 'it's not allowed from a legal standpoint,'” said Lazarus.

“All of these commissions, they work for state governments. These are ethical people who are professionals. So, if you put it to them that it's not allowed, they acknowledge it pretty quickly. I don't see that as being a real concern.”

Q: Do you expect any states to drop-away due to costs?

“Ultimately, there's no avoiding the cost. I mean, I'm not sure if you heard me say that we'll work with all of the states and racetracks to find a way of dealing with them that's affordable for them, that works for them,” said Lazarus.

“We will do our best to reach some kind of agreement that is manageable. But at the end of the day, if they just don't want to pay, then the only real option for them is the Texas option, which is deciding not to send out your pari-mutuel signal.”

The post Lisa Lazarus Talks HISA Budget appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Q&A with HISA’s Lisa Lazarus: Part Two

Last week, an important piece of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) puzzle was slotted into place when the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority's board of directors announced that Drug Free Sport International (DFSI) had been selected as the enforcement agency for the Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) arm of the program.

In part one of this two-part Q&A, HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus discussed the reasons behind DFSI's selection, details about the newly announced Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) and broad updates on the Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) program in general.

In part two, Lazarus discusses the working relationship between DFSI and the Authority–the non-profit umbrella established by HISA to oversee the broad program–as well as practical concerns about implementation of the safety program on July 1.

The following has been edited for brevity and for clarity.

TDN: What will the working relationship between the Authority and DFSI–what is essentially a service agency–look like? Will they be working primarily at the behest of the Authority or will they be an entirely separate, autonomous agency?

Lazarus: Entirely separate. Once we sign off and give them the contract, we don't have any influence.

Our only authority, so to speak, is over the rule-making process and over, of course, selecting the agency. So, if we feel the agency is not doing their job, we have the right to make changes. But ultimately, running the day-to-day business of the unit is going to be their responsibility and the responsibility of the advisory council.

TDN: At the recent Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) conference, journalist Tim Livingston made remarks about lax drug-testing protocols in sports like the NFL and the NBA. He said, “I think you guys have to be careful because a lot of these guys who architect these doping programs are doing so with the leagues,” and then he made the comment that they're not particularly thorough and aren't designed to catch cheats.

DFSI has worked with both the NFL and the NBA. Do these comments concern you?

Lazarus: They don't at all. I think they're completely untrue and actually quite shocking.

I worked at the NFL for 10 years, so I know very well how the NFL runs its drug program. To say that it's not intended to catch [cheats] while people are caught all the time, I don't really understand that perspective. I mean, I would disagree wholeheartedly.

I know people involved in every sports league in the U.S. I think the one difference is that the drug programs are collectively bargained between the leagues and the unions. So, there's obviously a representative of the athletes that has the chance to make sure that there's due process. There are protections–that's expected. That's what makes a program good. I mean, the program has to have integrity and fairness. But DFSI for me has the highest level of integrity. They also do work for USADA [U.S. Anti-Doping Agency] from time to time. So, they really have a stellar reputation.

I think the comments that were made are really unfounded and I don't know where they come from. My understanding was that his talk and experience wasn't in anti-doping, it was [to do with] a referee scandal.

Sarah Andrew

TDN: But in terms of transparency of results, transparency of who's getting tested, the sharing of results, this is a different ball game to what DFSI has had to largely handle with some of those other human leagues, right? This is a different beast for DFSI, no?

Lazarus: Yes, it is an entirely different beast. And that's why we've created this Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit.

The way that I look at it is, DFSI is sort of the anchor tenant, because testing is the most work-intensive component of the unit. But ultimately, what they're doing is working with the advisory council to oversee experts that we're going to hire in all of these different pillars. So yes, it is an entirely different beast than what they're used to, but that's why the structure reflects that difference.

TDN: Stepping back, July 1 is looming large, and so far only three states–California, Kentucky and Minnesota–have agreed to shoulder the costs of the track safety component of HISA. What if all or nearly all of the other states decide not…

Lazarus: And Colorado. But I don't know if that's public.

TDN: But what if all, or nearly all, of the other states decide not to join them? In that worst-case scenario…

Lazarus: It's not a worst-case scenario. It's not a question of whether or not the costs get paid, it's a question of who's responsible.

The constitution doesn't allow us to force the state to do anything, so, if the states choose not to pay, what happens is that cost gets transferred to the racetracks on a per-start, strength-of-purse basis. The race tracks then take on that responsibility and they have to come up with a formula to spread that cost amongst the covered persons and to determine who pays how much.

If it's not paid, obviously we're going to work with the tracks to make it as easy as we can for them, but ultimately, the stick that we have in the Act is that they can lose their signal for pari-mutuel wagering.

Horsephotos

TDN: There's an important personnel component to this as well, right? Let's take regulatory vets. There's already a real shortage of qualified veterinarians available to do the regulatory work. If a substantial number of states opt to leave that part of the equation to HISA come July 1, do you have a contingency plan to make sure there is a nationwide team of vets who can do the pre-race examinations, all that necessary work?

Lazarus: You're mixing up two concepts here. There are two components with every state. One is the money assessment. The other is the voluntary agreement. While only a few states have agreed to opt into the money [assessment], we have about 80% of the states agreeing to enter into a voluntary agreement.

For a very high level of success with voluntary agreements, I'm hoping it's going to be about 90%. But we're at about 80% now. And what that means is that we're agreeing with the states…to use their state stewards to enforce the HISA rules. Otherwise, what's going to happen is that HISA is going to have to come in and hire a steward to sit alongside the state steward.

We do have plans in place for those states where we have to do that. But a few racetracks have [also] come to us and said, 'Even though our state doesn't want to enter the agreement, can we work out a deal with you, because we have these staff, we want to be able to use them?' And we've been able to work with them.

We're in the process of getting together a stewarding panel that we can ship out to different racetracks if we need to, as well as regulatory vets, which you are right, there's definitely a shortage of. We're looking at ways that we can essentially plug those shortages if we have to. But we're really hopeful and optimistic that most states are going to reach that voluntary agreement with us.

TDN: As many as 80% to 90% of states have already signed the voluntary agreement?

Lazarus: No, I'm sorry, I should have said that about 80% have said that, because we still have a few more weeks. So, the deadline for opting in [about the] money was about May 1. The deadline for the voluntary agreement is toward the end of May. We've reached agreements with a number of them, but very close to reaching agreement with the majority.

To be fair, what I'm basing that number on are the ones that we're speaking to, working through logistics, coming to an arrangement. It's my belief and understanding that with those states, it obviously shows they want to make it work. We just have a couple more weeks to kind of wrap it all up.

TDN: You do have a contingency plan to make sure that the necessary personnel will be in place for those 10%, 15%, 20% of jurisdictions that don't sign that voluntary agreement?

Lazarus: Correct.

Coady

TDN: There is a considerable amount of concern–both from people stridently against HISA and those who are wholly supportive of it–that come July 1, we won't be ready for launch. What does the industry need to do to make sure this plane lands smoothly?

Lazarus: A couple things. One is everyone needs to go on to hisaus.org and register. We will soon be launching a campaign to remind everyone that they need to do that by July 1.

The second is racetracks need to get more involved and engage with us more–and most are–but especially in those jurisdictions where the racing commissions are not working with us, particularly the states that are suing us or are less likely to work with us. In those states, that's where the racetracks need to get involved because the burden is going to fall on them, not to pay for everything, but to be the sort of [fee] collector or the place where the information is going to be disseminated.

And [lastly], do what you can to kind of help get the message out to those that maybe are less likely to be on their laptops reading about developments. The industry belongs to all of us and this is a heavy lift. Congress gave us very aggressive timelines and we're going to be ready on July 1, but you're right, we're definitely going to need help and support to make this work.

TDN: There's a lot of really busy people in this sport who just don't have the time to go onto a website and try to find information that may not always be easily accessible. Do you think your outreach could be better?

Lazarus: Yeah, for sure. And we're working on that now and there'll be a lot more outreach between now and July 1.

I cannot tell you how many groups I've spoken to and how many appearances I've made on board calls, on Zoom calls, etcetera. I do that day and night. So, I hope I've reached a lot of people that way. And I think I have.

We've created materials for jockeys that are kind of a cheat sheet guide for them, what they need to do. We've disseminated those. We have one for the trainers that's coming up very soon and we also have a social media campaign that's about to launch. So, I'm hoping that's going to do as good a job as we can expect. We still have a couple months to get the word out, and I think we're going to get there. It's moving quickly, but we're going to get there.

The post Q&A with HISA’s Lisa Lazarus: Part Two appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights