The post Six New Board Members Join Thoroughbred Owners Of CA BOD appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The post First Foal A Filly For Tizamagician appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The post Breeders’ Cup Tickets On Sale April 22 appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Saturday's forecast calls for no such inclement weather and racing will go on as planned. Four graded contests are carded, headed by the GIII Robert B. Lewis S. for 3-year-old males. The GII Santa Monica S., GIII Thunder Road S. and GIII Megahertz S. are part of a program that kicks off at 12:15 p.m. PT.

Those four events are part of the 1/ST Racing Tour and also includes the Listed Swale S. and GIII Holy Bull S. from Gulfstream Park. All of the 1/ST Racing Tour races will be shown on Peacock and CNBC.

The post Forecast Rains Force Cancellation of Sunday Racing at Santa Anita; Stakes Rescheduled appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The Bay Area racetrack is scheduled to race from Dec. 26 through June 9, 2024, after which the facility is set to close permanently.

The proposed ordinance–which makes the claim that confining a horse to its stall for the majority of the day is akin to animal abuse–would make it illegal to keep a horse stabled for more than 10 hours a day and requires every horse access to a minimum of one-half acre of pasture turnout.

There are currently around 1200 horses stabled at Golden Gate, with nearly 290 grooms, hotwalkers and other stable employees living there, according to Dave Duggan, Golden Gate vice president and general manager.

Though tweaked in places, the revised language closely resembles the original ordinance introduced earlier this year by Berkeley City councilmember Kate Harrison, who is currently running to be Berkeley Mayor.

On Nov. 12, the city council's Health, Life Enrichment, Equity, and Community Committee unanimously voted to send the item to the nine-member Berkeley City Council for a formal vote.

According to Harrison, the ordinance will be heard by the City Council in January and would need a majority vote to pass. The first Berkeley City Council meeting after winter recess is on Jan. 16.

It's currently unclear if the ordinance, if passed, would go into effect immediately or after a period of time.

California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) president Eoin Harty wrote in a statement that as proposed, the ordinance would seriously impinge upon the ability of the horsemen and women of Golden Gate to properly care for their horses.

“If enacted, this measure would not protect the welfare of horses but, in fact, be detrimental to them as horses in enclosures outside of stables may suffer greater risks to their health and safety,” wrote Harty.

“Stables have been honed over thousands of years to allow horses to remain social while protecting them from injury caused from other horses as well as self-inflicted harm. This ordinance would also negatively impact the large numbers of people whose own livelihoods depend on racing,” Harty added.

“It's not something to be taken lightly,” said California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) executive director Scott Chaney.

According to Chaney, the proposed ordinance has some “serious legal problems” in terms of Berkeley's legal jurisdiction to impose such a mandate.

The nine-page proposed ordinance states that the legislation is designed to govern “only those areas not already directly covered by State and Federal laws. It specifically focuses on a limited set of conditions to supplement the existing regulatory framework.”

It also claims that, as a charter city, Berkeley has the authority to “establish regulations and the jurisdiction to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare by establishing safeguards for horses as long as they do not conflict with or duplicate state and federal law.”

But horse racing in California is regulated by the CHRB and by the federal government through the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), explained Chaney.

“That area's been pre-empted by state and federal government, and so, I don't believe, at least preliminarily, that it would survive a legal challenge,” said Chaney.

The proposed ordinance–which is specifically focused on horses “Held, Owned, Used, Exhibited, or Otherwise Kept for Racing or Other Sport, Entertainment or Profit”–makes several glaring misrepresentations of the Thoroughbred racing industry.

The ordinance appears to make the erroneous suggestion that Thoroughbred racehorses, on average, live to only three to five years of age.

“Many fatalities in horseracing are euthanizations after horses suffer catastrophic injuries, cutting their lives unnaturally short,” the ordinance states. “When CBS Bay Area reported on the most recent horse death at GGF in May of this year it cited the fact that 'live into their 30s, but the average age of is [only] three to five years old.'”

The ordinance also states that “horse deaths continue to rise at the horse racing tracks within City limits.”

According to the Jockey Club Equine Injury Database, race-day equine fatalities are declining nationwide. Last year saw the lowest statistical equine fatality rate since 2009, when record keeping began–1.29 fatalities per 1000 starts.

When it comes to Golden Gate Fields, the track's equine fatality rate has been consistently below the national average since 2017. Last year, the rate was 0.56 fatalities per 1000 starts–a number less than half the national average.

The proposed ordinance marks just the latest turbulence faced by the horsemen and women of Golden Gate Fields–which opened in 1941–as it lurches towards its official end.

The Stronach Group (TSG) announced in July that it was closing Golden Gate Fields at the end of December with the goal of increasing field size and adding another day of racing a week at Santa Anita.

After pushback from industry stakeholders who argued that such an abrupt closure would pose an existential threat to the future of racing in Northern California, TSG officials left the door open to delaying the track's closure another six months. But they appeared to make such a deal incumbent upon a reshaping of the way simulcasting proceeds are allocated in the state.

The rule of thumb is that proceeds from wagers made in the “northern zone” stay in Northern California to pay for purses and operational expenses, while the proceeds from wagers made in the “southern zone” stay in Southern California for the same purposes.

Initially, various stakeholders in Northern California–including representatives of the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF)–voiced resistance to TSG's idea of moving these proceeds south.

In September, however, California lawmakers sought enough buy-in to pass legislation that meant if Golden Gate Fields is not licensed to operate beyond July 1 next year, proceeds from simulcast wagering in the north are funneled south when there is no live racing in the northern half of the state after that date.

In recent years, Golden Gate Fields has found itself the target of animal rights activists.

In March of 2021, protestors disrupted racing by running onto the track before lying in a circle with interlocking pipes.

The protestors belonged to animal rights organization, Direct Action Everywhere, which had sought to shut Golden Gate Fields down for good.

Alan Balch, CTT Executive Director, wrote in a statement that CTT is concerned about the negative impact the Berkeley ordinance will have on horse welfare, mirroring Harty's comments.

“We are working with all segments of equestrian sports to educate legislators about horse safety, and we look forward to meeting with Berkeley's elected leaders to discuss this ordinance,” wrote Balch.

Balch added: “Relying on the good faith of the Berkeley City Council and leadership, CTT believes this is a matter requiring the facts about good horsemanship and horse care–not just for horse racing but all horses–to be brought to their attention.”

The post Berkeley City Council Ordinance Could Close Golden Gate Early appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The $300,000 GII Starlet S. for the 2-year-old fillies will take place for the 10th time at the Orange County venue and will take place Saturday, Dec. 9, one week prior to the running of the male counterpart, the $200,000 GII Los Alamitos Futurity. Each race is run over a mile and a sixteenth.

The two other 2-year-old stakes are restricted to California-bred and or -sired horses. The $100,000 Soviet Problem S. for fillies will take place Sunday, Dec. 10, with the $100,000 King Glorious S.–a race won 10 years ago at Hollywood Park by future dual Classic winner California Chrome–set for Sunday, Dec. 17.

The stakes schedule is completed by the GIII Bayakoa S. for fillies and mares at a mile and a sixteenth and is programmed for Friday, Dec. 15.

The post Los Al Winter Stakes Topped By Futurity, Starlet appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Bred by Ganje, Lord Prancealot is the third foal and winner out of the stakes-winning Country Reel mare Disko Dasko (Fr). The bay won the five-furlong race by 3 1/2 lengths in :58.62 (video). He was a $45,000 buy-back at the California Thoroughbred Breeders' Association (CTBA) Winter Mixed Sale earlier this year. Lord Prancealot is aiming for the $125,000 I'm Smokin S. for Cal-breds on Sept. 8.

Initially standing in Ireland beginning in 2013 and shuttling to Australia for the 2017-2022 Southern Hemisphere breeding seasons, the 2012 G2 Flying Childers S. hero relocated to Rancho San Miguel in California in 2020. One of the top first-season sires in Europe in 2016, Sir Prancealot now has 13 stakes winners worldwide, with four of his seven group/graded winners scoring in the U.S. Leading the charge is 2019 GI American Oaks heroine Lady Prancealot (Ire). Multiple Grade II winners Beau Recall (Ire) and Madam Dancealot (Ire) have also both placed at the highest level.

“Having such an impressive debut winner at Del Mar is no surprise for me after the time I've spent around Sir Prancealot,” said Adrian Gonzalez of Checkmate Thoroughbreds, who manages the stallion's U.S. syndicate. “I am confident this is just the tip of the iceberg for Sir Prancealot's first American crop.”

The stallion has covered almost 400 mares during his first four breeding seasons in the Golden State and stood for $10,000 this year.

Rancho San Miguel owner Tom Clark added, “We are very excited to announce that, due to the tremendous commitment he has received from shareholders, we have now secured his services as a permanent member of our stallion roster. Sir Prancealot will no longer shuttle out of the country;

instead, he will be available for inspection by breeders here at our farm year-round.”

The post Sir Prancealot Sires First U.S.-Conceived Winner, Will Cease Shuttle Duties appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The TDN checked in with six Northern California trainers, ones with both big and small stables, and asked how they plan to try to make the best out of a bad situation and whether or not they will relocate to Southern California.

Steve Sherman: I was surprised by the announcement like everyone else. I really didn't have a clue. They had just fixed the roof on my barn, so I really didn't think this sort of announcement would be coming out. I was shocked. You always heard rumors that the place could be gone in two, three years, but I certainly didn't think it would be closing in December. As for a plan, I'll be honest with you, I don't have one. I will see how things shake out. I don't want to make too quick of a decision. Is Santa Anita an option for me as we speak right now? No. I have no plans to go there. Things could change, but as of right now it's not my plan. I was going through my barn and I probably have 10 to 12 horses that could compete down there. It's just a different beast down there compared to the way it is here. The horses are much better and the races are a lot tougher. That's why you see a lot of horses come up north. It's because they can't handle it down there. Out of 1,000 horses here, maybe they'll get 200, 300. That might help short term, but if those horses don't do well there and don't pan out what does the long-term picture look like? And where are the other 600-700 horses going to go? I don't see what Santa Anita is envisioning. Maybe they were expecting to get half the horse population from here or maybe two-thirds of it. If so I could understand what they're trying to do. But when people start going through their barns and trying to figure out what horses can make it down there, there's probably not that many. The numbers don't add up.

Dan Markle: I had a pretty good routine. Raced up at Emerald in the summer and went down to Golden Gate in the winter. That worked out pretty good. But to lose Golden Gate is devastating. With them closing Golden Gate I'm going to have to think of something new. I don't have the caliber of horses that can compete at Santa Anita, so I won't be going there. And the purses at Santa Anita aren't that great either compared to some of the other big tracks. I guess I'm going to have to relocate. Maybe they can get something going with the Fairs. I think that's possible. If that happens it might work out better than what we had before. But I'm not in favor of moving my operation down there at all.

Marcia Stortz: I am hearing that CARF is going to try to work things out so that the meets go for 10 months between Sacramento and Pleasanton. I'd like that because it would be good to get back on the dirt. I have a couple of horses that would fit in Southern California but not really many more than that. It's a different league. We were told in December a year ago that The Stronach Group was going to replace the surface, which was, in my opinion, in dire need of repair. We were told the new surface would be put in by June when we left for the fairs. When it wasn't purchased in the winter, the writing was on the wall in my opinion.

I would never move to Santa Anita. First of all, I don't think I would get the stalls. I suppose I could try to get into Los Alamitos.

Golden Gate | Vassar Photography

Brendan Galvin: It was a bit of a shock. We were kept in the dark, but we do know that the people at CARF are trying to organize something. It's unfortunate that they are closing Golden Gate. That place has been good to me. I've got to go some place or I've got to retire and I don't have the money to retire. I'll either go to Southern California or another state. I've got some nice allowance horses here, but they probably wouldn't be allowance horses down there and that's a problem. I also have some cheap horses who would have no business going down there. It's a real kick in the head. I'm hoping the fair tracks can get something together. If they don't expand I think that will be the end of the fair circuit because nobody is going to ship all the way back up here for a few months of fair racing. There are a lot of horses here who would be running over their heads at Santa Anita. These horses are here for a reason. Everyone wants to win at Santa Anita and Del Mar and if they could they would be there already and not racing in Northern California. These horses are here for a reason.

Tim Bellasis: Nobody knows what to do. We are all hoping that CARF steps up to the plate and it looks like they will and that would allow racing to continue in Northern California. They're saying they could race 10 months out of the year. They've worried for a good five years that Golden Gate was going to close so they have a plan that can be put into action fairly quickly. They'll get some of the better barns from here with the better horses. They may go down there. Out of my 10 horses I've got now, seven of them are Santa Anita rejects. I wouldn't be capable of making any money down there. When Golden Gate decided they weren't going to put down a new surface on the Tapeta track, which was way overdue, you could pretty much tell what was going to come next. Santa Anita will get some of our horses, but it will be a small percentage. I think only 10-20% of the horses we have in Northern California could win a race down there.

Reid France: For me, it wasn't a big surprise. That being said, it's a bummer. It's the track I attended as a kid, I won my first race there and had a lot of success there. It's very disappointing that it's going to be gone. As far as my plans go, nothing is set in stone. We still don't know what kind of dates will come out of this. I will keep my options open and look at places like Florida, Kentucky and New York. Once we know what our options are here and we can sort some things out, we'll try to figure out where we'd go. We'll consider sending some to Santa Anita because we have a lot of Cal-breds. We're not closing that door. But we will look at a lot of places, all the major racing jurisdictions and see where we're at. I probably have a handful that could fit at Santa Anita. I'm sending five to Del Mar and will see what happens with them. This will all work itself out.

The post Northern California Trainers React to Golden Gate Closure, Plot Their Next Moves appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The proposed ordinance makes it illegal to keep a horse stabled for more than 10 hours a day and requires that every horse has access to a minimum of one-half acre pasture turnout.

While reaffirming state and federal laws surrounding animal abuse and cruelty, the proposed ordinance also makes it a crime to conduct training and racing under a “reasonable expectation” that it could substantially injure or harm the animal.

“Such reasonable belief would be based upon substantial evidence, which may include, without limitation, the animal's physical condition, indicia of pain or suffering, musculoskeletal limitations, age or other relevant factors,” the ordinance states.

“Obviously we're concerned,” said Craig Fravel, chief executive officer at 1/ST Racing and Gaming, a company under The Stronach Group (TSG) umbrella, which owns Golden Gate Fields.

Fravel said that he was alerted to the ordinance on Friday. As such, TSG has not yet had a chance to conduct a legal analysis of the ordinance, or to plot a clear response, he said.

“I'm not going to over-react at this point, and just try to be constructive in our approach,” said Fravel. “There will be some time to engage and I think educate people on our safety record and our protocols and efforts that we go through.”

The proposed ordinance, introduced by Berkeley City councilmember Kate Harrison, has been referred to the Council Health and Life Enrichment Committee for hearings. The ordinance would need a recommendation from the committee before being taken up by the Berkeley City Council.

Harrison declined an interview, saying that she was on vacation. Harrison added, however, that she would discuss the proposed ordinance when committee discussions begin.

The nine-page proposed ordinance is specifically focused on horseracing and excludes other facilities within city limits where animals are housed, including animal rescue and adoption agencies.

It makes, however, several glaring misrepresentations and distortions of the Thoroughbred racing industry. This includes an erroneous suggestion that Thoroughbred racehorses, on average, live to only three to five years of age.

“Many fatalities in horseracing are euthanizations after horses suffer catastrophic injuries, cutting their lives unnaturally short,” the ordinance states. “When CBS Bay Area reported on the most recent horse death at GGF in May of this year it cited the fact that 'live into their 30s, but the average age of is [only] three to five years old.'”

The ordinance also states that “horse deaths continue to rise at the horse racing tracks within City limits.”

According to the Jockey Club Equine Injury Database, race-day equine fatalities are declining nationwide. Last year saw the lowest statistical equine fatality rate since 2009, when record keeping began–1.29 fatalities per 1000 starts.

When it comes to Golden Gate Fields, the track's equine fatality rate has been consistently below the national average since 2017. Last year, the rate was 0.56 fatalities per 1000 starts–a number less than half the national average.

“I'd like to push back pretty solidly against some of the suppositions,” said Scott Chaney, executive director of the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), who added that the CHRB is “aware and certainly concerned” about the ordinance.

Golden Gate Fields | Vassar Photography

“Fatalities are not on the rise at Golden Gate Fields. The opposite is true,” said Chaney. “And while it is true that racehorses generally race from three to five, that is not their average life expectancy.”

The ordinance argues that the City of Berkeley, a charter city, has the legal authority to “establish regulations” and the jurisdiction to “protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare by establishing safeguards for animals” as long as those regulations don't conflict with state and federal law.

“It is in the public interest to adopt an ordinance prohibiting inhumane or abusive treatment of animals held, owned, used, exhibited or otherwise kept for sport, entertainment or profit within the City limits,” the ordinance states.

Chaney is less sure of the city's ability to establish such a law. “I believe that there would be some major legal hurdles in attempting to pass such a thing,” said Chaney.

He added, however, that the CHRB hasn't yet conducted a thorough legal analysis of the proposed ordinance to identify what those legal obstacles might be.

One possible hurdle would presumably concern how Golden Gate Fields straddles two adjacent cities, Berkeley and Albany.

The ordinance outlines a set of tough penalties, beginning with minimum fines of $5,000 per animal, per violation, per day, or imprisonment for periods between 30 days and one year.

In explanation of the proposed requirement to provide racehorses access to open pastures for a good portion of the day, the ordinance argues that how colic, laminitis, and pleuropneumonia are issues worsened by excessive confinement.

“Confining a 1200-pound animal to a 12×12 stall is akin to confining an elephant to a box car or a killer whale to a swimming pool. Equine veterinarian, Dr. Kraig Kulikowski, compared this to locking a child in a 4×4 closet for 23 hours a day, abuse punishable by law,” the ordinance states.

In recent years, Golden Gate Fields has found itself the target of animal rights activists.

In March of 2021, protestors disrupted racing by running onto the track before lying in a circle with interlocking pipes.

The protestors belonged to animal rights organization, Direct Action Everywhere, which seeks to see Golden Gate Fields shut down.

The post Proposed Berkeley City Council Ordinance Threat To Golden Gate Fields appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

So far, the state's VMB has flexed its primacy, issuing dozens of records requests and, in a number of instances, complaints against vets within this colony. The highest profile such case concerned a settlement last year with CHRB equine medical director, Jeff Blea.

In that settlement, the VMB issued Blea a fine of more than $130,000, required him to undergo continuing education classes and placed him on probation–this, for issues that a consensus of prominent equine veterinarians said amounted largely to relatively minor record keeping violations, those typically resulting in just fines.

At the crux of the interagency dispute is this question: To whose set of rules should California's racetrack vets adhere? The VMB's rules built around the California Veterinary Medicine Practice Act, or the CHRB's own set of regulations?

This is a crucial question for the vets with complaints issued against them as the VMB is often seeking punitive actions for veterinary practices that are permitted under the CHRB's rule book.

This means that if a veterinarian settles their case with the VMB and returns to work under a probation order, they face potentially serious consequences–the loss of a license even–for breaching the VMB's standards of equine care, all the while abiding by the CHRB's rule of law.

But given federal preemption of state law, does the advent of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act's (HISA) anti-doping and medication control program (ADMC)–now set for launch later this month–change the dynamic of this regulatory impasse by becoming the ultimate arbiter of backstretch veterinary practice?

The answer is not altogether clear.

According to wording of the act, “HISA rules preempt State laws or regulations with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of HISA,” wrote Monica Vargas, a spokesperson for the Department of Consumer Affairs, which oversees the VMB.

In other words, HISA preempts state law only to the rules written into its books. The HISA Authority–the broad non-profit umbrella established by the act–takes a similar stance.

“The Act states that HISA rules preempt state law and regulations on the particular matters that the HISA rules address. In other words, if no HISA rule has been promulgated on a particular matter, a State is free to continue regulating it,” wrote a HISA spokesperson.

Scott Chaney | CHRB Photo

According to CHRB executive director, Scott Chaney, the broader matter of racetrack veterinary oversight is therefore far from resolved, with the advent of HISA meaning that California's backstretch vets are now essentially subject to three main regulatory bodies–the CHRB's rules still applying when neither HISA nor the VMB's rules are applicable.

“To me, this is the worst of all worlds–some areas preempted by HISA and other areas not,” said Chaney.

Craig Robertson, outside counsel for the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), also views the issue through muddy legal waters.

“If HISA speaks on a subject, it's intended to be pre-emptive. But you're likely to get into arguments about whether a specific subject is one that HISA speaks on and then preempts or not,” Robertson said. “I just don't think it is going to be black and white.”

As such, Robertson said that he is gearing up for a slew of lawsuits around the country, seeking to define who has ultimate jurisdiction over what when it comes to backstretch veterinary practice.

“There's enough grey area and nuance that I think it's going to make for creative lawyering for people like me to be able to argue various sides of these particular issues,” Robertson added.

Among some of the areas of conflict between the VMB and the CHRB that HISA appears to have resolved concerns drug administration.

This includes the use of what the VMB terms “dangerous drugs”–like the ubiquitously administered sedative acepromazine–and the use of non-FDA approved compounded medications like dantrolene, used on horses that tie-up.

Though the use of compounded medications are a standard practice in veterinary medicine, the CHRB's own Rule 1867 (b) has long stated that “the possession and/or use on the premises of a facility under the jurisdiction of the Board of any drug, substance or medication that has not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the United States.”

The medical board has interpreted that rule categorically, detailing in complaints how no compounded drugs are FDA approved for use on CHRB licensed grounds, even if compounded from FDA approved parent drugs.

This prompted a recent CHRB emergency rule modification changing the language of the rule to permit awfully prescribed, compounded medications manufactured to federal and state guidelines.

Furthermore, the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit–the arm of HISA charged with rolling out its ADMC program–has issued its lists of controlled and banned substances, making clear which drugs are permitted for use in covered horses and when. HIWU's controlled substances list includes medications like dantrolene and acepromazine.

“HISA obviously talks about medications and the treatment of horses,” confirmed Robertson.

HISA also has a provision that says, “the administration of medications and treatment methods to covered horses should be based upon an examination and diagnosis,” Robertson added.

This leads onto another backbone of the VMB's complaints against California's backstretch veterinary community: Alleged problems with their record keeping and with their veterinarian-client-patient relationships (VCPR), which covers a vet's familiarity with an animal before diagnosing and treating a medical condition.

According to the VMB, multiple California veterinarians have allegedly failed to establish an appropriate VCPR before administering, prescribing, dispensing, or furnishing medications and other medical treatments to the horses in their care.

In this regard, several equine veterinary experts have argued that the VMB has misconstrued the basic nature of backstretch veterinary practice, mistakenly substituting common standards of care around small animal practice for that in large animal practice, including herd animals.

Once again, HISA law appears to preempt the state in these matters, with statutory language covering both veterinary record keeping and the VCPR.

Indeed, “Any HISA regulation that requires veterinary records to be provided to the Authority preempts any state law that would require client consent for the veterinary records to be provided,” confirmed a HISA spokesperson.

But grey areas remain. For one, HISA fails to establish a clear set of protocols around some of the more nuanced aspects of general equine veterinary care, such as the prophylactic administration of medications, along with the use of certain medical procedures like endoscopies (otherwise known as “scoping”), said Chaney.

“The harder cases are when it comes to standard of care and quote, un-quote negligence,” said Chaney. “I can imagine the vet' med' board still wanting or believing that they regulate in that space, and with good reason. But given how HISA is dancing around those issues, has that space been preempted? I think that's murky.”

Equally murky, it seems, is whether the California VMB will unilaterally pursue disciplinary actions against licensees who are sanctioned by HISA for HISA rule violations.

According to HISA, the VMB is prohibited from taking that course of action under specific circumstances.

“The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act dictates that, now that HISA's Anti-Doping and Medication Control regulations have been approved by the FTC, HISA preempts any state agency from taking enforcement, investigation or disciplinary actions with respect to medication administration by a veterinarian regulated by the Authority in connection with a Covered Horse,” wrote a HISA spokesperson.

The VMB on the other hand appears to view that door as being much wider ajar.

Vargas wrote how under California's Business and Professions Code, the VMB may “discipline a Board licensee on the grounds of conviction of a charge of violating any federal statutes or rule regulating dangerous drugs or controlled substances or a violation of any federal statute, rule, or regulation regulating dangerous drugs or controlled substances.”

In addition, the same code authorizes the VMB “to take disciplinary action against a Board-licensee on the grounds of disciplinary action taken by any agency of the federal government for any act substantially related to the practice regulated by the Board. Each disciplinary matter involving a Board licensee would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether formal disciplinary action should be taken,” Vargas added.

To help realign the regulatory disconnect between agencies overseeing backstretch vets, the VMB established last year an equine practice subcommittee.

Respected equine veterinarian, Barrie Grant, was also recently appointed to the VMB, remedying what had hitherto been a noticeable void of equine expertise on the board.

Still, the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding backstretch veterinary practice in California is making it a shaky enterprise, said Chaney.

“How can one not be concerned given what's happened over the last year and a half and given overlapping jurisdiction,” said Chaney. “At the end of the day, your regulations and rules have to be clear.”

All this prognosticating on jurisdictional authority, however, might prove premature if HISA is quashed in the courts, warned Robertson.

“Obviously, there's a big question as to whether or not HISA will survive legal challenge,” Robertson said.

“And if you get past that, the next question would be: What form does HISA look like if it survives legal challenge?” Robertson added. “Is it in its current form, or will the courts say that certain parts of it are non-enforceable or somehow limited in some way?”

The post Does HISA Remedy CHRB, VMB Turf War? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post