CHRB On Santa Anita Turf: ‘Back To Normal And Safe’

On the day before racing at Santa Anita is scheduled to resume Friday with five turf races following an 11-day break that had been planned before recent grass-course drainage issues arose, staffers with the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) deemed the turf to be ready to handle horses.

The last two dates that Santa Anita had raced, Apr. 8 and 9, a total of five turf races had to be swapped from the “firm” grass course to the “fast” main dirt track because of slippage problems on the far turn.

That Apr. 8 card was the meet's premier race date, featuring the GI Santa Anita Derby and its undercard stakes. But when Midnight Jostar (Midnight Lute) lost his footing and fell at the top of the stretch, unseating jockey Kent Desormeaux, one remaining late-card Grade III stakes and two allowance races got transferred to the main track.

The trouble spot was then aerated overnight and jockeys walked the course with track management on Sunday, Apr. 9. They rode four races over the “firm” course, but continued complaints slipping and bobbling necessitated the removal of two later races from the course.

Scott Chaney, the CHRB's executive director, said Apr. 20 both the fallen horse and jockey ended up being “perfectly fine” and that the removal of turf racing was “completely the right call” by track management.

But Chaney did add that from a standpoint of inconvenience, “it certainly wasn't a good look for [Santa Anita] and it was bad for the wagering public.” He termed the mid-card need to remove races from the turf on a cloudless, non-raining day to be “less than ideal, and frankly Santa Anita lost a fair amount of money because of it.”

Chaney continued: “The current explanation is that it was wet, therefore slippery, [and] that water was not draining well enough through the turf course. My understanding is that that's partly because they've changed the composition because of the inordinate amount of rain. So it can take more rain, but it doesn't drain quite as well.

“There was no racing this week. We've been getting daily reports from our safety stewards on the grounds there about the measures they've taken in terms of aeration and [the addition] a substance that promotes drainage on the turf course,” Chaney said. “I know they worked three horses [Wednesday] morning [and everybody] seemed happy with how that was supposed to go. ”

CHRB equine medical director Jeff Blea concurred with Chaney.

“It's frustrating for those owners. It's frustrating for the betting public, and those trainers as well. I heard a lot of those frustrations,” Blea said. “But, as Scott said, there were some issues with horses slipping on one area of the racetrack around that turn. The stewards decided, and I think they made a good decision, in the safety of the horses and riders, to take it off the turf.

“I know Santa Anita was affected paramountly with the loss of wagering,” Blea said. “[But] they've gone through, they've evaluated and looked at what the problem was [and concluded] that the turf was back to normal and safe.”

The post CHRB On Santa Anita Turf: ‘Back To Normal And Safe’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Does HISA Remedy CHRB, VMB Turf War?

The ongoing stand-off between California's Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) and the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) has amounted to a regulatory turf war over California's backstretch veterinarians.

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

Del Mar Boosts Maiden Allowance Purses

Del Mar will once again offer a bonus package for maidens competing at the highest levels on dirt throughout its upcoming 84th summer season, the track said in a release on Wednesday.

The move adds 25% in purse earnings to runners who fit the simple specifications of the program, is available to all dirt competitors in maiden allowance races, all California-bred maiden allowance races or any maiden-claiming race at the $62,500 level or above. The maiden must come from the barn of a trainer who has no more than 60 horses stabled in Southern California.

“It is simply a monetary incentive for owners and trainers to run in essential races that help solidify our racing cards throughout the meet,” said Tom Robbins, Del Mar's executive vice president for racing.

The track has also raised its maiden allowance purses for '23 to a California record $82,000. Its 25% maiden bonus elevates that purse to $102,500. The other races that qualify for the maiden bonus program are maiden-claiming $150,000 ($57,000 purse, that rises to $71,250 with the bonus), maiden-claiming $80,000 ($50,000 purse, that climbs to $62,500) and maiden-claiming $62,500 ($46,000 purse, that goes up to $57,500). The bonuses apply to horses that earn purse money for finishes from first through fifth.

 

The post Del Mar Boosts Maiden Allowance Purses appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Ferndale Loses Fight in CHRB Race Dates Disagreement

Months of contentious jockeying over whether Ferndale (Humboldt County Fair) should run its second of two weeks of racing at the end of August un-overlapped with its Northern California compatriot, Golden Gate Fields (GGF), ended in defeat for the small rural track.

In a 5-1 vote during Thursday's California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting, the board decided that during the week running Aug. 23 to Aug. 29, Humboldt and GGF would field simultaneous race meets.

Ferndale will run the first of two scheduled weeks of racing this year, from Aug. 16 through Aug. 22, un-overlapped.

In what has been framed as a David versus Goliath fight, proponents of Ferndale had advocated for un-overlapped race dates as a financial lifeline for a small fair track that plays both a vital role in the local economy and provides a unique draw for new players into the sport.

GGF has had in its corner the likes of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) and the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT), who argued in support of the San Francisco facility's position as an important economic driver for the state's horse racing industry as a whole.

Given how this same debate has become something of an annual slugfest, CHRB vice chairman Oscar Gonzalez–the sole commissioner to vote in Ferndale's favor after a recent scouting trip to the town–proposed a compromise during the vote tally to help assuage ongoing uncertainty.

“What if we went to a rotation where one year is overlapped the second week, and the other year it goes un-overlapped,” said Gonzalez. “So, essentially, 2023 we would allow for two-weeks of un-overlap. 2024, we go back to the second week being overlapped.”

That proposal, however, garnered no traction–at least for now.

ADW Monies for 2023 HISA Payment

The CHRB voted to use in-state Advanced Deposit Wagering (ADW) monies otherwise earmarked for purses and commissions to cover California's 2023 fee assessment for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), which amounts to roughly $1.6 million.

The assessment was originally supposed to be around $6.7 million for the year. But because California has agreed to continue performing many of the duties inherent in the law's drug control program–like the collection and testing of samples–HISA has offered California roughly $5.1 million in credits.

As it currently stands, the HISA law covers only Thoroughbreds and not Quarter Horses. CHRB executive director Scott Chaney confirmed when asked that mixed races at Los Alamitos Racetrack between Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses will not fall under HISA's jurisdiction.

Inclement Weather Policy

The agenda item with arguably the most salience for the horsemen concerned the inclement weather policy the CHRB adopted a couple of years ago in the aftermath of the 2019 Santa Anita welfare crisis, when a rash of fatal breakdowns were attributed to an exceptionally rainy winter, necessitating the track to be frequently sealed.

In short, there remains a perception that horses that work or race immediately after a track is unsealed are at a higher risk of injury–a possible correlation currently being studied by researchers at U.C. Davis.

Right now, once a sealed surface has been opened up, the current policy permits no high-speed workouts for 24 hours, though does allow for everything up to a gallop.

During this winter's volley of storms that have lashed California, the CHRB's inclement weather policy has led to a highly disrupted training and racing schedule for trainers.

“I think it's fair to say that we've received an inordinate amount of rain this year, and so I think it has, shall we say, strained the limits of the inclement weather policy,” admitted Chaney.

According to CHRB equine medical director Jeff Blea, Thursday's meeting provided an opportunity to discuss possible modifications to the policy, with the idea of proposing more concrete rule changes in the future.

Blea outlined a bifurcated proposal whereby for the first 24 hours after a track has been opened up, horses are permitted to jog only.

“The reason for that is, we feel the track is safe for training, but we feel as a matter of safety to reduce the amount of concussion and bone remodeling events that would occur during galloping to limit it to jogging,” said Blea.

According to Blea, for the subsequent 24 hours of the 48-hour period following the opening of a sealed racetrack, horses could be permitted to gallop or breeze as per the discretion of the track superintendent, CTT representation and Blea himself.

“For the second 24 hour of the 48-hour period, we discussed leaving that to jogging only,” said Blea. “But we landed on the conclusion that the determination would be made at the recommendation of the track superintendent in conjunction with myself and the CTT to determine whether the second day after the opening of the seal, we allow jogging or whether we allow them to gallop or even possibly breeze.”

“The decision would depend upon how much water has accumulated in the previous rainstorm, correct?” asked CHRB chairman Greg Ferraro.

“That decision would depend upon how much water occurred during that event, when they were able to get the track sealed, what the track looks like when it's open, how deep they can cut it to ensure there's a safe and consistent base to it,” replied Blea.

Blea confirmed that this policy would apply to both the main track and the training track at Santa Anita. The proposed changes pertain only to training, with no possible modifications to the inclement weather policy proposed at this time for racing.

The post Ferndale Loses Fight in CHRB Race Dates Disagreement appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights