Weekly Stewards and Commissions Rulings, Apr. 11-17

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.

With the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) having gone into effect on July 1, 2022, the TDN will also post a roundup of the relevant HISA-related rulings from the same week.

New York

Track: Aqueduct
Date: 04/13/2023
Licensee: Dylan Davis, jockey
Penalty: Three-day suspension
Violation: Careless riding
Explainer: Jockey Mr. Dylan Davis is hereby suspended three (3) NYRA racing days. This for careless riding during the running of the 1st race at Aqueduct racetrack on April 6th 2023 having appealed a stay has been granted.

Track: Aqueduct
Date: 04/14/2023
Licensee: Jaime Torres, apprentice jockey
Penalty: Fourteen-day suspension
Violation: Careless riding
Explainer: For having waived your right to an appeal Jockey Mr. Jaime Torres is hereby suspended 14 NYRA racing days, April 20th, 21st ,22nd , 23rd , 27th, 28th ,29th ,30th 2023 through May 4th, 5th, 6th , 7th , 11th 12th 2023 inclusive. This for careless riding during the running of the second race at Aqueduct Racetrack on April 8th 2023.

Kentucky

Track: Keeneland
Date: 04/08/2023
Licensee: Aveory Faircloth, owner-trainer
Penalty: Sixty-day suspension, 30-days stayed due to good prior record
Violation: Possession of contraband
Explainer: After waiving his right to a formal hearing before the Board of Stewards Aveory Faircloth is hereby suspended 60 days for possession of contraband (needles, syringes and injectable medications) “by a person other than a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary medicine” and discovered on the association grounds of Three Diamonds Training Center, a location under the jurisdiction of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. Due to mitigating circumstances (lack of violations in relation to length of license history), 30 days are to be served from April 11, 2023, through May 10, 2023 (inclusive). The remaining 30 days are stayed on the condition that no similar violation or Class A or Class B medication violation occurs in any racing jurisdiction within 365 days from the date of this ruling. During his suspension Mr. Faircloth is denied the privileges of all facilities under the jurisdiction of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. Entry of all horses owned or trained by Aveory Faircloth is denied pending transfer to persons acceptable to the stewards.

Track: Keeneland
Date: 04/12/2023
Licensee: Barbara Riley, owner-trainer
Penalty: $500 fine, horse disqualified, purse forfeited
Violation: Medication violation (for horse that ran at Turfway Park)
Explainer: Upon receipt of notification from The University of Kentucky Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, the official testing laboratory for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, sample number R008025 taken from Future Victory, who finished second in the first race at Turfway Park on April 1, 2023 contained methocarbamol at a level of 7.98 ng/ml in blood (Class C drug). After waiving her right to a formal hearing before the Board of Stewards, Barbara J. Riley is hereby fined $500. Future Victory is disqualified and all purse money forfeited. Pari-mutuel wagering is not affected by this ruling. Upon receipt of this ruling, the licensee is required within thirty (30) days to pay any and all fines imposed to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. Failure to do so will subject the licensee to a summary suspension of license pursuant to 810 KAR 3:020 Section 15 (cc).

NEW HISA STEWARDS RULINGS

The following rulings were reported on HISA's “rulings” portal, except for 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

Gulfstream Park
Madeline Jane Rowland – violation date April 7; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 8 strikes
Miguel Angel Vasquez – violation date April 8; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes
Edwin Gonzalez – violation date April 8; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes

Keeneland
Tyler Gaffalione – violation date April 8; $1697.25 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes
Jose Luis Ortiz – violation date April 8; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes
Grace Louise Mcentee – violation date April 12; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes
Junior Rafael Alvarado – violation date April 12; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes

Oaklawn Park
Ramon Vazquez-Negron – violation date April 2; $250 fine, “striking his mount three times in a row without a pause”
Keith James Asmussen – violation date April 7; $250 fine, “raising wrist above helmet when using crop”

Tampa Bay Downs
Jose Luis Alonso – violation date April 8; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 9 strikes

Turf Paradise
Luis Valenzuela – violation date April 4; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes

Will Rogers Downs
Lindsey Kate Hebert – violation date April 12; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes
Chad A Lindsay – violation date April 12; $500 fine and three-day suspension, “struck mount after obtaining maximum placing,” on appeal and stay requested

The post Weekly Stewards and Commissions Rulings, Apr. 11-17 appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Weekly Rulings: April 4-April 10

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.

With the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) having gone into effect on July 1, 2022, the TDN will also post a roundup of the relevant HISA-related rulings from the same week.

California

Track: Santa Anita

Date: 04/09/2023

Licensee: Abel Cedillo, jockey

Penalty: Three-day suspension

Violation: Careless riding

Explainer: Having received notice from the California Horse Racing Board that the appeal of LATS Ruling #32 (March 3, 2023) has been withdrawn, the original ruling is reinstated.  Jockey Abel Cedillo is suspended for 3 racing days (April 28, 29 & 30, 2023). Pursuant to California Horse Racing Board Rule #1766 (Designated Races), the term of suspension shall not prohibit participation in designated races.

The following rulings were reported on HISA's “rulings” portal, except for the voided claim rulings which were sent to the TDN directly.

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

Violations of Crop Rule

Aqueduct

Heman Kumar Harkie–violation date April 1; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes

Tampa Bay Downs

Angel A Rodriguez–violation date March 31; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 8 strikes

Isaac Manuel Jimenez–violation date April 1; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes

Shaun Bridgmohan–violation date April 2; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 9 strikes

Will Rogers Downs

Gustavo Armando Herrera–violation date April 10; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 8 strikes

Travis G Cunningham–violation date April 10; $250 fine and one-day suspension, 7 strikes

The post Weekly Rulings: April 4-April 10 appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Bill Walmsley, Iowa HBPA File Suit Against FTC Over HISA

Bill Walmsley, Jon Moss, and the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association for Iowa filed suit against the Federal Trade Commission to “stop the illegally constituted Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA)” on Thursday, according to a press release from the National HBPA.

The case, Bill Walmsley, et. al. v. Federal Trade Commission, was filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

“Congress cannot outsource regulatory authority to a private organization–unaccountable to the American people–that has the power to create rules, levy fines, and adjudicate disputes,” said John Kerkhoff, an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority plainly violates the separation of powers embodied in our Constitution.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation is a conservative non-profit legal organization that describes itself as defending “Americans threatened by government overreach and abuse.” They say they are fighting the case in court at no charge.

The FTC has been at the center of recent battles between the National HBPA and other horsemen's groups and the implementation of the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Act. On November 18, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that HISA was unconstitutional because it “delegates unsupervised government power to a private entity,” thereby violating the private non-delegation doctrine.

On December 29, 2022, Congress passed a so-called “HISA fix” that tweaked the law by giving the FTC limited ability to modify Authority rules. As a result, the Authority resubmitted the medication control rules and issued a public statement saying they were hopeful and optimistic that they would be able to implement them around mid-March. And in fact, due to the resubmitted rules giving the FTC more authority, the United States Sixth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of HISA and its Anti Doping and Medication Controls went into effect March 27. But just last Friday, horsemen had another court victory when a federal judge in Texas delayed the implementation for 30 days due to a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires most rules to be published for 30 days before their implementation. The ADMC is currently scheduled to go back into effect on May 1.

Friday's press release from the NHBPA reads:

“HISA is a private nonprofit organization. But the Constitution does not permit unaccountable, private actors to wield regulatory authority. Regulators must be accountable to the people, through their representatives in government. The Constitution ensures this by requiring that officers of the United States be appointed by the president or head of an executive department.

In fact, HISA violates the separation of powers in myriad ways:

1. It violates the principle of nondelegation. Congress cannot delegate its power to make the law — especially to a private organization that is not accountable to the president.

2. It violates the Appointments Clause. The Constitution requires that regulations be approved by officers of the United States, and that those officers be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The members of HISA are not officers of the United States; they are not nominated by the president, and they are not confirmed by the Senate.

3. It violates due process, by requiring that industry participants — owners, trainers, racetrack owners, and others — regulate and oversee their competitors. In practice, HISA is controlled by large industry players.

4. It violates Article III by assuming judicial powers to adjudicate disputes and impose fines. HISA doesn't have to make its case in federal court. Instead, it only needs to convince its in-house tribunal, and appeals go to HISA itself. At no point do the accused have the benefit of meaningful judicial review.”

Somewhat more dramatically, Pacific Legal Foundation's website reads, “The Horse Act's penalties and onerous testing and safety standards could very well force people like Bill (Walmsley) and Jon (Moss), who are not among horseracing's elite or wealthy, out of the sport altogether.”

The PLF says that it has won 15 of the 17 cases it has brought before the Supreme Court, typically fighting against `government overreach' by entities such as the EPA's Clean Water Act, the National Forest Service, and affirmative action.

 

The post Bill Walmsley, Iowa HBPA File Suit Against FTC Over HISA 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

Verified by MonsterInsights