Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Finds HISA Unconstitutional

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday ruled that the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) is unconstitutional because it “delegates unsupervised government power to a private entity,” and thus “violates the private non-delegation doctrine.”

The Appeals Court order by a panel of three judges reverses a lower court's decision earlier this year that dismissed a constitutionality lawsuit initiated in 2021 by the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA).

The Nov. 18 order also remands the case back to U.S. District Court (Northern District of Texas) for “further proceedings consistent with” the Appeals Court's reversal.

The immediate ramifications of how this order will affect the day-to-day operations of HISA and its Authority are still unclear. TDN is in the process of obtaining further comment from stakeholders on both side of the issue, and this story will be updated.

On Mar. 15, 2021, the NHBPA and 12 of its affiliates (later joined by the state of Texas and its racing commission) sued the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), its commissioners, the HISA Authority, and its nominating committee members, bringing claims under the private-nondelegation doctrine, public nondelegation doctrine, Appointments Clause, and the Due Process Clause, seeking to permanently enjoin the defendants from implementing HISA and to enjoin the Nominating Committee members from appointing the Authority's board of directors.

“The plaintiffs argued HISA is facially unconstitutional because it delegates government power to a private entity without sufficient agency supervision,” the Appeals Court order stated. “The district court acknowledged that the plaintiffs' 'concerns are legitimate,' that HISA has 'unique features,' and that its structure 'pushes the boundaries of public-private collaboration. Nonetheless, the court rejected the private non-delegation challenge, concluding HISA stays within current constitutional limitations as defined by the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit.'

“We cannot agree,” the Appeals Court order stated. “While we admire the district court's meticulous opinion, we conclude that HISA is facially unconstitutional. A cardinal constitutional principle is that federal power can be wielded only by the federal government. Private entities may do so only if they are subordinate to an agency. But the Authority is not subordinate to the FTC. The reverse is true. The Authority, rather than the FTC, has been given final say over HISA's programs.”

The order continued: “While acknowledging the Authority's 'sweeping' power, the district court thought it was balanced by the FTC's 'equally' sweeping oversight. Not so. HISA restricts FTC review of the Authority's proposed rules. If those rules are 'consistent' with HISA's broad principles, the FTC must approve them. And even if it finds inconsistency, the FTC can only suggest changes.

“What's more, the FTC concedes it cannot review the Authority's policy choices. When the public has disagreed with those policies, the FTC has disclaimed any review and instead told the public to 'engag[e] with the Authority.' An agency does not have meaningful oversight if it does not write the rules, cannot change them, and cannot second-guess their substance. As the district court correctly put it: 'Only an Act of Congress could permanently amend any Authority rule or divest it of its powers. The FTC may never command the Authority to change its rules or divest it of its powers.'”

“The end result is that Congress has given a private entity the last word over what rules govern our nation's thoroughbred horseracing industry. The Constitution forbids that. For good reason, the Constitution vests federal power only in the three branches of the federal government. Congress defies this basic safeguard by vesting government power in a private entity not accountable to the people. That is what it has done in HISA,” the order stated.

“It is the duty of the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association to protect horsemen across the country and that is not a responsibility I take lightly,” said Eric Hamelback, CEO of the NHBPA. “From HISA's onset, we have thoroughly and fairly examined the HISA corporation's impact on our industry and its constitutionality. We operated in good faith and did our due diligence to appropriately weigh the pros and cons. We have been saying for years this law and the defined Authority itself are unconstitutional and we are pleased the court has unanimously sided with our position, an outcome many in our industry thought was impossible. Today's unanimous ruling clearly states the entity constructed under HISA is an unconstitutional body and should not hold governing power over our industry, a position we have long supported. On behalf of the NHBPA, I can assure you that we will be following this development closely and support the power reverting back into the hands of the State Racing Commissions. I will keep our members updated as more details come to the surface. We are very appreciative of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for the thorough analysis and opinion. We also thank the many industry stakeholders who supported us in our effort to ensure that horsemen are not subject to an unconstitutional law.”

“While HISA is disappointed by the Fifth Circuit's decision, we remain confident in HISA's constitutionality and will be seeking further review of this case,” said Charles Scheeler, Chair HISA Board of Director. “If today's ruling were to stand, it would not go into effect until January 10, 2023 at the earliest. We are focused on continuing our critical work to protect the safety and integrity of Thoroughbred racing, including the launch of HISA's Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program on January 1, 2023.”

At a different point in the order, the Appeals Court delved deeper into the issue of rulemaking.

“For instance, HISA broadly instructs the Authority to create a program that includes '[a] uniform set of training and safety standards and protocols consistent with the humane treatment of covered horses,' while leaving the policy details up to the Authority…. Keep in mind, moreover, that we are not considering here whether the 'considerations' provide a sufficiently intelligible principle to satisfy the public non-delegation doctrine. Instead, we are deciding whether the Authority is subordinate to the agency. And, on its face, HISA's generous grant of authority to the Authority to craft entire industry 'programs' strongly suggests it is the Authority, not the FTC, that is in the saddle…”

The order continued: “If the FTC cannot review the policy choices behind the rules, then logically the FTC cannot make the Authority modify those policies. That is again confirmed by HISA's plain terms. The modification power the Act gives the FTC is limited in two ways. It pertains only to whether a rule is 'consistent' with the Act and does not include review of the policies informing the rule…”

“The Authority's power outstrips any private delegation the Supreme Court or our court has allowed. We must therefore declare HISA facially unconstitutional. In doing so, we do not question Congress's judgment about problems in the horseracing industry. That political call falls outside our lane. Nor do we forget that '[t]he judicial power to declare a law unconstitutional should never be lightly invoked.' We only apply, as our duty demands, the settled constitutional principle that forbids private entities from exercising unchecked government power.”

The NHBPA lawsuit is separate from a similar HISA complaint over alleged constitutional issues brought by racing commissions and attorneys general in a number of opposing states. That case, too, was dismissed earlier this year but has a motion to dismiss pending.

The post Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Finds HISA Unconstitutional appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Weekly Stewards and Commissions Rulings: Nov. 8-14

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, the TDN will also post a roundup of the relevant HISA-related rulings from the same week.

California
Track: Del Mar
Date: 11/10/2022
Licensee: Steve Knapp, trainer
Penalty: Return of horse and claim amount
Violation: Void claim
Explainer: In the matter of the claim submitted for the horse Square Deal. Having received first notice of a Prohibited Substance (methocarbamol) in the post-race test sample, pursuant to Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Rule 2262 (c)(5) (Void Claim), the claim submitted for the Horse Square Deal, in the second race on September 10, 2022, at Del Mar Race Track is hereby deemed void.

The horse, Square Deal trained by Steve Knapp, shall be returned to owners Steve Knapp and Leslie Blake, also, Steve Knapp and Leslie Blake shall return the amount of the claim of $20,000 to the paymaster at Del Mar Race Track by November 20, 2022. Furthermore, owners Steve Knapp and Leslie Blake and trainer Robert Diodoro have reached an agreement for the care and training of the horse during the time the horse was in the claimant's barn.

Track: Del Mar
Date: 11/12/2022
Licensee: Kyle Frey, jockey
Penalty: Three-day suspension
Violation: Careless riding
Explainer: Jockey Kyle Frey, who rode Durante in the fifth race at Del Mar Race Track on Friday, November 11, 2022, is suspended for 3 racing days (November 19, 20 and 24, 2022) for failure to maintain a straight course in the stretch and causing interference. This constitutes a violation of California Horse Racing Board rule #1699 (Riding Rules – Careless Riding).

Track: Del Mar
Date: 11/12/2022
Licensee: Ryan Curatolo, jockey
Penalty: Three-day suspension
Violation: Careless riding
Explainer: Jockey Ryan Curatolo, who rode Spycatcher in the seventh race at Del Mar Race Track on Friday, November 11, 2022, is suspended for 3 racing days (November 19, 20 and 24, 2022) for failure to maintain a straight course in the stretch and causing interference. This constitutes a violation of California Horse Racing Board rule #1699 (Riding Rules – Careless Riding).

Track: Del Mar
Date: 11/13/2022
Licensee: Emily Ellingwood, jockey
Penalty: One-day suspension
Violation: Excessive use of the whip
Explainer: Having violated the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Rule #2280 (c)(5) & (6) (Use of Riding Crop) and pursuant to Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Rule #2282 (Riding Crop Violations and Penalties – Class 3), Jockey Emily Ellingwood, who rode Beskar in the sixth race at Del Mar Race Track on November 12, 2022, is suspended for (1) day November 20, 2022, and fined $250.00 for over use of the riding crop after reaching a maximum placing.

Furthermore, Jockey Emily Ellingwood is assigned three (3) violation points that will be expunged on May 13, 2023, six (6) months from the date of final adjudication pursuant to Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Rule #2282 (Riding Crop Violations and penalties. Jockey Emily Ellingwood has accrued a total of three (3) points.

New York
Track: Aqueduct
Date: 11/08/2022
Licensee: Domenick Schettino, trainer
Penalty: $1,000 fine
Violation: Possession of an improperly prescribed medication.
Explainer: Trainer Dominick Schettino is hereby fined the sum of $1,000 for having possession of an improperly prescribed medication in his barn.

Track: Aqueduct
Date: 11/09/2022
Licensee: Juan Vazquez, trainer
Penalty: Fourteen-day suspension, $2,000 fine
Violation: Medication violation
Explainer: Having received a report from the NYS Gaming Commission Equine Drug Testing Laboratory of the finding of Albuterol in the post-race samples taken from horse “Esor” #3 which raced in the 8th race and finished 1st at Aqueduct Race Track on December 30th 2021. Trainer of record Mr. Juan Vazquez having been notified of the findings, requested and received a hearing before the Board of Stewards. The outcome found that trainer Mr Juan Vazquez violated commission rules 4043.4(a), and is hereby suspended fourteen days and fined the sum of $2,000. Due to a previous ruling handed down by the Pennsylvania Board of Stewards your suspension will commence January 27th 2025, through February 9th 2025 inclusive. Furthermore, the Stewards order horse “Esor” disqualified from any part of the purse and the purse redistributed as follows.

1. (#2) Alite
2. (#9) Total Effort
3. (#4) My Boy Colton
4. (#6) Raising Sand
5. (#5) Ocean Deep
6. (#7) Napoleon Complex
7. (#1) Deputies Edge

Ordered that during your period of suspension, you shall not directly or indirectly participate in New york State pari-mutuel horse racing. You are denied the privilages and use of the grounds of all racetracks, you are forbidden to participate in any share of purses or other payment. Every horse is denied the privilages of the grounds and shall not participate in pari-mutuel racing in New York State, that (a) is owned or trained by you, or by any individuals who serves as your agent or employee during your suspension: or (b) for which you during your suspension are directly or indirectly with training, including any arrangements to care for, train enter, race, invoice, collect fees or other payments, manage funds, employ or insure workers, provide advise or other information or assist with any aspect of the training of such horses. Suspended: 01/27/2025 to 02/09/2025 (14 days)

Track: Aqueduct
Date: 11/15/2022
Licensee: Gustavo Rodriguez, trainer
Penalty: Seven-day suspension, $1,000 fine
Violation: Medication violation
Explainer: Having received a report from the NYS Gaming Commission Equine Drug Testing Laboratory of the finding of Phenylbutazone in the post-race sample taken from Horse “Ok Honey” (#7), which raced at Aqueduct Race Track in the 2nd race and finished 2nd on October 14th 2022. Trainer of record Mr. Gustavo Rodriguez having been notified of the post-race posative findings and having waived his right to an appeal, is hereby fined the sum of $1,000 and suspended 7 Calandar days effective Sunday November 20th 20022, through Saturday November 26th 2022, inclusive. Furthermore, the Stewards order horse “Ok Honey” disqualified from any part of the purse and the purse redistributed as follows:

1. (#6) Quality Stones
2. (#2) She's a Black Belt
3. (#4) Alarm Clock
4. (#3) Shadolamo
5. (#1) Alpine Queen

Ordered that during your period of suspension, you shall not directly or indirectly participate in New York State Pari-mutuel horse racing. You are denied the privilages and use of the grounds of all racetracks, you are forbidden to participate in any share of purses or other payment. Every horse is denied the privilages of the grounds and shall not participate in pari-mutuel racing in New York State, that (a) is owned or trained by you, or by individuals who serves as your agent or employee during your suspension: or (b) for which you during your suspension are directly or indirectly with training, including any arrangements to care for, train, enter, race, invoice, collect fees or other payments, manage funds, employ or insure workers, provide advise or other information or assist with any aspect of the training of such horses. Suspended: 11/20/2022 to 11/26/2022 (7 days)

NEW HISA STEWARDS RULINGS

HISA has recently launched its “rulings” portal, with more detailed information about the ruling decisions than has previously been made available.

HISA has shared in emails the following rulings over the past week, though some of them originate from prior weeks.
Where possible, we have added to the rulings listed below additional information from the new portal. Where we haven't, the “ruling date” corresponds to the date that rulings documentation was submitted to HISA.

When it comes to violations of the crop rule, it is important to note that HISA has established a rule limiting whip use to six strikes during a race.

Violations of Crop Rule
Aqueduct
Nik Juarez – ruling date November 5, 2022
Tamay Alpander – ruling date November 6, 2022
Dylan Davis – violation date November 10, 2022; $250 fine, one-day suspension, seven strikes

Charles Town Races and Slots
Alexis Rios Condre – ruling date November 10, 2022
Victor Rodriguez – ruling date November 10, 2022

Churchill Downs
Joseph M. Johnson – ruling date November 6, 2022
Joseph Johnson – ruling date November 10, 2022
Francisco Arrieta – violation date November 10, 2022; suspended 7 Kentucky racing days, November 19, November 20 and November 23 through November 27, 2022 (inclusive) due to multiple crop violation rulings.

Finger Lakes
Jeremias Flores – violation date November 08, 2022; $250 fine, eight strikes

Golden Gate Fields
Irving Orozco – ruling date November 11, 2022

Gulfstream Park
Wladimir Enrique Rengifo – violation date November 13, 2022; $250 fine, one-day suspension (on 11-20-22), eight strikes
Edgardo Zayas – violation date November 14, 2022; $250 fine, one-day suspension (on 12-01-22), seven strikes

Hawthorne
Jose Lopez – ruling date November 6, 2022

Keeneland
Joel Rosario – ruling date November 9, 2022

Mahoning Valley
Andrew Ramgeet – ruling date November 10, 2022

Mountaineer Park
Yuri Yaranga – violation date November 08, 2022; $250 fine, wrist over helmet
Marco Ccamaque – violation date November 13, 2022; $250 fine, wrist above helmet
Jose Davila – ruling date November 11, 2022 – Race 3
Jose Davila – ruling date November 11, 2022 – Race 4
Fernando Salazar Becarra – ruling date November 11, 2022

Remington Park
Jose Carlos Montalvo – ruling date November 10, 2022
Jose Alvarez – violation date November 11, 2022; $250 fine, one-day suspension (on 11-22-22), seven strikes
Anardis Rodriguez – violation date November 14, 2022; $250 fine, one-day suspension (on 11-21-22), seven strikes

Zia Park
Oscar Ceballos – violation date November 14, 2022; $250 fine, one-day suspension (on 11-26-22), seven strikes

Voided Claims
Churchill Downs
She'll Never Know – ruling date November 3, 2022
Loma Vista – ruling date November 3, 2022

Horseshoe Indianapolis
Rockin All Night – ruling date November 9, 2022

Parx Racing
Soupster – ruling date November 8, 2022

Turf Paradise
Wedding Chapel – ruling date November 14, 2022

Violations involving Suspension or Redistribution of Purse

Churchill Downs
Francisco Arrieta – 7-day suspension; multiple violations resulting in point accumulation warranting suspension for 7 days pursuant to HISA Rule 2283

Charles Town Races and Slots
Victor Rodriguez – excess strikes; $500 fine; 3-day suspension; 5 points; purse redistribution

Mountaineer Park
Fernando Salazar Becarra: ten strikes; $500 fine; 3-day suspension; 5 points; purse redistribution; ruling date November 11, 2022

Finger Lakes
John Ramon Davila: ten strikes; $500 fine; 3-day suspension; 5 points; purse redistribution; ruling date November 3, 2022

Appeal Request Updates
Finger Lakes
Brian M. Culnan and Clifford E. Lawrence, Jr. (owner of Kodiak Brown, ridden by John Ramon Davila)
Crop rule violation
Ruling date November 3, 2022
Appeal filed November 10, 2022
No stay requested

The post Weekly Stewards and Commissions Rulings: Nov. 8-14 appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Durenberger Named HISA Equine Safety and Welfare Director

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) has appointed Dr. Jennifer Durenberger as Director of Equine Safety and Welfare, effective Nov. 28, 2022, HISA announced Thursday.

Dr. Durenberger will advise HISA's leadership and Standing Committees on equine health and welfare strategies and oversee HISA's relationships with industry veterinarians and other key stakeholders to ensure consistency in the implementation of HISA's equine safety and welfare policies nationwide.

“HISA is thrilled to have Dr. Durenberger sharing her insight and expertise to help protect the health and welfare of our sport's magnificent equine athletes,” said HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus. “Dr. Durenberger's leadership will be crucial to ensuring the success of HISA's cooperative relationships with Regulatory, Association and Attending Veterinarians, and other industry stakeholders, as we continue to fulfill our mandate to enhance safety and integrity.”

Dr. Durenberger has more than 30 years of experience in Thoroughbred racing, most recently serving as the Jockey Club Steward for the New York Racing Association. She is a member of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association's Safety and Integrity Alliance, where she serves as Senior Veterinary and Regulatory Consultant, and a board member of the Racing Officials Accreditation Program.

“It's a privilege to join the exceptional team at HISA in its effort to improve equine health and safety through the introduction and enforcement of strong uniform rules,” said Dr. Durenberger. “I look forward to working with HISA's experts as well as the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit to further position veterinarians and all racing participants for compliance and success.”

An accredited senior steward, Dr. Durenberger previously worked as the Chief Examining Veterinarian for NYRA, a Commission Veterinarian for the California Horse Racing Board, an Association Steward at Delta Downs in Louisiana, a Steward at Canterbury Park for the Minnesota Racing Commission and as Director of Racing for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Dr. Durenberger received a veterinary degree from Cornell University and a law degree from Western State University College of Law at Fullerton.

The post Durenberger Named HISA Equine Safety and Welfare Director appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Private Property Rights Under HISA

The legal threads connecting the rights of licensees to ply their trade and racetrack owners to police their grounds have been pulled tighter than a rip cord these past few years, thanks to a series of high-profile battles involving Hall of Famers Jerry Hollendorfer and Bob Baffert.

These same threads hamstrung the years-long dispute between California's trainers and racetracks about what should be written into the race-meet agreement about fair procedures for trainers facing potential banishment from a facility.

It all boils down to this: How best to balance the rights of track owners to protect their businesses from bad actors alongside the rights of trainers and others from becoming targets of arbitrary bans—actions with often huge implications for their professional futures?

As Jan. 1 looms, when the full remit of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) is scheduled to go into effect—including most crucially HISA's anti-doping and medication control program—how will federal oversight of the sport alter exclusionary rights, if at all?

“HISA is finalizing its policies in this area and will have more to share in the weeks ahead,” wrote HISA spokesperson, Liz Beadle, when TDN asked to discuss the issue with a HISA representative.

So instead, the TDN reached out to three legal experts in the field. Their main takeaway? Other than a tightened regulatory world, don't expect much to alter—at least for now.

“I don't think it will really change the legal analysis,” said Bennett Liebman, Government Lawyer in Residence at Albany Law School and an adjunct professor of law.

Nuances

First and foremost, “I don't think HISA preempts the common-law right of a racetrack to exclude someone for whatever reason they want absent some protective civil right,” said Alan Foreman, CEO and chairman of the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association (THA).

This means that if a track or racing association decides that a trainer has contravened moral or ethical boundaries—irrespective of whether that same person has fallen foul of any rules and regulations—they have the authority to do so independent of HISA, Foreman said.

“HISA can regulate in areas which they're authorized to regulate, but they can't tell me who I have to allow on my property and who I don't,” Foreman said.

Such actions are rarely cut and dried, of course.

Private properties are required to afford licensees the legal framework of “fair procedure” when seeking to bar them from their grounds. For a state agency—including a quasi-state agency non-profit organization like the New York Racing Association (NYRA)—the legal standard is “due process and equal protection.”

With this in mind, racetracks try not to specify detailed reasons for excluding an individual “in almost all cases,” said Liebman.

“When they do that,” Liebman explained, “there's potential that they might damage the individual's reputation and perhaps give way to constitutional protections.”

Therefore, “the normal approach by most racetracks is to say, 'you're being excluded for our best business interests,'” said Liebman. And he doesn't expect that broad legal dynamic to change much under HISA.

There are nuances, of course.

Even if a racetrack in West Virginia or Pennsylvania excludes a licensee from its grounds, that licensee can then petition the racing commissions in those states to overturn the ban, said Foreman.

In the hypothetical scenario a racetrack in those two states excludes a licensee for a reason that falls under the remit of HISA—for a welfare and safety related issue, for example—and the licensee then tries to take their case to the requisite commission, the relevant track “is going to make the argument that HISA deprives the racing commissions of any jurisdiction over drugs and safety,” said Liebman.

“I don't think it's going to be successful,” Liebman added, about such an argument made by the tracks. “But they're going to raise it.”

Foreman is less sure. Although HISA pre-empts state law, he said, it's unclear whether HISA nullifies the right of those commissions to independently arbitrate track exclusions in their jurisdiction.

“Maybe HISA does have the right to stand in that area,” he wondered. “Maybe not.”

Right of Private Property

This leads to another hypothetical.

In the event a racetrack in other states excludes a licensee for a reason that falls under HISA's regulatory umbrella, there's a strong possibility that person will litigate the action on grounds that HISA should be the one to adjudicate the alleged offense, not the track owners.

“If I was a lawyer representing an individual, I'd argue, “HISA does have jurisdiction here, and HISA has to tell the track what to do because HISA preempts state law,'” said Foreman.

But even then, individual tracks wield enormous legal clout, Foreman added. “If I'm the track, I'd say, 'I'm not acting under state law, I'm acting under right of private property.'”

As Foreman sees it, a more streamlined regulatory environment under HISA—including more expeditious case handling times—should negate the need for tracks to weed-out so-called bad actors (more on this in a bit).

“I think the actions the tracks have been taking recently is because they thought the regulatory system was failing to address offenders, multiple offenders, or those who were giving the industry a bad name,” said Foreman.

As such, “I think it's unlikely we're going to see tracks take actions against individuals because of their records,” said Foreman.

“I think with the enactment of HISA and the implementation of HISA, that probably goes away somewhat,” he added, “unless HISA's a failure.”

But how much latitude does HISA really have in this sphere?

 

Fair Procedure

Earlier this year, trainer Juan Pablo Silva was handed a 180-day ban from Turf Paradise after a 1-20 shot he trained and owned was pulled up and eased shortly after the start of a race.

This past June, trainer Marcus Vitali reached an undisclosed settlement with NYRA, after the latter claimed the trainer had “engaged in conduct that is detrimental to the best interests of the sport of Thoroughbred racing or potentially injurious to the health or safety of horses or riders.”

These two trainers subsequently found a home at Mountaineer—alongside another trainer, Burton Sipp, who has faced multiple allegations involving insurance scams and dead horses, animal neglect cases at a zoo he operated, race-fixing stings and regulatory malfeasance over a 40 year period.

Interestingly, Vitali and Silva have recently saddled horses at Turf Paradise, which kick-started its latest 2022-2023 winter meet on Nov. 4.

The question raised by the professional conduct and inter-state activities of these individuals is this: Does HISA have legal sway to independently step in and exclude licensees it deems a detriment to racing's image when a racetrack fails to do so?

For many watching HISA closely, this particular question is where the rubber meets the road.

There's language in the rules that appears to give HISA fairly broad authority over conduct detrimental to the sport and to equine welfare. As Foreman explains it, however, HISA has the ability to “fine, suspend, or revoke registration” from a licensee registered with HISA, but only if that individual is found guilty of violating stipulated HISA rules, and afforded due process.

Ultimately, “If a person is suspended, that's HISA's jurisdiction. HISA is the new national racing commission,” Foreman said, before hammering home how “that has nothing to do with a track's private property rights.”

An important caveat is that every licensee begins life under HISA with a clean slate.

“Remember, everybody starts at zero when the medication rules go into effect on January 1,” said Foreman. “They're not allowed to take into account their prior record.”

And Foreman said he is hopeful that HISA's new stricter set of rules and sanctions in general will motivate better overall standards of equine care.

One salient example of how this stricter regulatory theater will look surrounds Boldenone, an anabolic steroid better known as Equipoise.

In September, the stewards at Gulfstream Park suspended trainer Nagib Aboughaida 15-days and fined him $500 for a Boldenone positive. Under HISA, Boldenone is a prohibited substance, a positive for which necessitates an ineligibility period of up to 14 months.

Still, beyond the purview of actionable conduct, HISA's wrists are still fairly tightly tied, Foreman conceded. This of course includes there being “no mandatory reciprocity among racetracks if a racetrack chooses to exclude an individual for reasons it determines are appropriate,” Foreman added.

“That will still remain moving forward.”

Penalties for Equine Injuries?

That's not to say HISA doesn't have the potential authority to exclude trainers for actions or behaviors that aren't currently specific violations, said Drew Couto, an attorney who has represented trainer Jerry Hollendorfer in the many-splintered litigations stemming from his exclusion from The Stronach Group facilities in June of 2019.

The trick, Couto said, will be to devise a set of objective criteria to specifically delineate expectations of ethical equine care.

Crucially, such criteria must be relayed to trainers and others in clear, easily understandable fashion, said Couto.

“I don't think somebody should be left alone without any idea that their license is in jeopardy and all of a sudden be blind-sided,” said Couto.

In other words, “being congratulated one week in the winner's circle for your winners, and then the next week being told you've got to get out of Dodge,” Couto added.

In this regard, what HISA would have to do is similar to what the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) attempted last year, when proposing regulations that would have penalized trainers for certain equine injuries or fatalities.

The CHRB shelved that idea in favor of a blue-ribbon panel to review equine injuries, stymied—at least for now—by the practicalities of framing sanctionable regulations around what is often such a nuanced and multi-faceted issue.

As for HISA intervening in private property matters, Couto believes that in the early days of the law, the new federal Authority will prove reluctant to weigh in on many matters where licensees have been excluded from private facilities.

Absent that clear set of standards in cases where licensees haven't broken any specific rules, “I suspect HISA's not going to want to jump into the deep end of that pool—not at the outset,” said Couto. “Their lawyers are going to say, 'do we want to be the defendants in a Jerry Hollendorfer-type of case?'”

Given the sheer scale of litigation costs as well as the enormity of the undertaking still ahead in ensuring that HISA works as intended, said Couto, “does HISA want that?”

The post Private Property Rights Under HISA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights