HISA Issues Updated Guidance On Intra-Articular Injections

The Anti-Doping and Medication Control Standing Committee (ADMC) of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (“HISA”) has re-considered the Intra-Articular injection rule and has issued new guidance regarding its enforcement.

HISA ADMC Rule 4222 prohibits Intra-Articular injections on Race Day, within 14 days prior to Post-Time and within seven days prior to any Timed and Reported Workout. Effective July 16, 2023, the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit (HIWU) will sanction the Responsible Person of any Covered Horse that violates the prohibition on Intra-Articular injections within 7 days prior to a Timed and Reported Workout as follows (within a 365-day rolling period):

  • 1st violation: $3,000 fine.
  • 2nd violation: $6,000 fine, 10-day suspension.
  • 3rd violation: $10,000 fine, 30-day suspension.
  • 4th violation: $20,000 fine, 60-day suspension.
  • 5th violation: $25,000 fine, 120-day suspension.

Beginning July 16, 2023, Covered Horses will not be subject to a period of ineligibility for violations of the Intra-Articular injections Workout rule or Race Day rule, unless multiple violations involving the same horse are incurred within the 365-day period.

Until this new guidance takes effect on July 16, and in accordance with guidance previously announced on June 26, the prohibition on Intra-Articular injections within 7 days prior to any Timed and Reported Workout will continue to be enforced only against the Covered Horse through the imposition of a period of ineligibility of 30 days. The sanctions associated with the prohibition on Intra-Articular Injections within 14-days prior to Post-Time have not been modified, other than the fact that the Covered Horse may not be suspended.

The full language of today's issued guidance, which was approved by the HISA ADMC Standing Committee and the HISA Board, can be found on HISA's website.

Under Rule 4222, the day of administration is considered day 1. A horse may breeze on day 8 following administration and may enter to race at any time, provided the race is on day 15 or later.

The post HISA Issues Updated Guidance On Intra-Articular Injections appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Q&A: HISA’s Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act's (HISA) drug control program has encountered some choppy waters since its launch on May 22, encapsulated by events surrounding the law's rules on intra-articular joint injections.

At the end of last month, HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus explained that the Authority–the non-profit umbrella broadly overseeing implementation of the federal law–had temporarily suspended full enforcement of its rules surrounding intra-articular joint injections prior to workouts.

Under HISA's rules as written, trainers are prohibited from giving their horse intra-articular joint injections within 14 days prior to the post-time of a race, and within seven days prior to any timed and reported workout. A violation of these rules could result in a 60-day suspension for the trainer.

According to an announcement dated June 26, the prohibition of such injections within seven days prior to a workout shall be enforced only by making the horse ineligible to race for a period of 30 days. This temporary measure will last until July 15, 2023. HISA had also issued a bulletin to stakeholders on June 23 stating the new policy.

The decision was made, explained Lazarus, because of general confusion surrounding the rules among horsemen. Between 15 and 20 trainers had breached the rule surrounding intra-articular joint injections prior to a workout.

Lazarus said that the names of the suspended horses would be publicly issued. But when pressed by the TDN, the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit–which implements HISA's anti-doping and medication control (ADMC) program–initially responded that the names of these horses would not be made public.

On Friday, HIWU reversed course and issued the names of the horses in question. The list shows that nine of the horses in question had competed during the period of their 30-day ineligibility to race. Three had won. The 30-day ineligibility to race was made for the welfare of the horse, Lazarus had initially explained.

Because of various questions raised over this episode, as well as other issues raised by readers over the past few weeks, the TDN has decided to maintain a Q&A surrounding the rollout of HISA's anti-doping and medication control program. The answers to the questions come from representatives from either HISA or HIWU.

Over the next few days and weeks, this Q&A will be updated as more questions are fielded, and as the TDN receives answers from HISA and HIWU.

 

TDN: How much does a split sample cost?

The cost of a split sample to test for a Banned Substance is $2,000. The cost of a split sample to test for a Controlled Medication is $1,200.

 

TDN: Why does it cost substantially more than had typically been the case for a split sample?

Fees were negotiated with the laboratories to ensure expedited reporting timelines and uniformity in testing standards.

 

TDN: In instances of a provisional hearing after a positive finding for a banned substance (and before the full hearing before an arbitral body of 1-3 persons): Who specifically arbitrates that hearing? And where is that hearing held?

The Provisional Hearings are arbitrated by a member of the Arbitral Body, which is selected by JAMS. The hearing may be held by phone/video conference call.

 

TDN: How much does the provisional hearing cost?

The cost depends upon the time required by the arbitrator. The Covered Person does not pay any of the costs up front and has the option to request that HISA/HIWU cover the full cost rather than splitting them with the Covered Person.

 

TDN: What is the timing of that hearing? Does HIWU always wait for the split sample to be returned before holding that hearing, for example?

Timing depends on how quickly an arbitrator can be cleared of conflicts and schedules with all parties can be coordinated. HIWU does not wait for the B sample (split sample) to come back before holding the hearing.

 

TDN: What happens when a trainer is provisionally suspended? Can that trainer's horses be transferred to the trainer's  assistant? Or are horses required to be transferred to a person unconnected with the stable? Does the numeral size of a barn have any bearing on this decision?

When a trainer is Provisionally Suspended, they may not participate in any activity involving Covered Horses as well as any activity taking place at a racetrack or training facility. This means that the Covered Person cannot be involved in any direct care or conditioning of their Covered Horses.

However, the Covered Person can make arrangements for other individuals to oversee the care, wellbeing, and training of their Covered Horses. Trainers subject to Provisional Suspensions are not required to formally transfer their Covered Horses to another trainer via the HISA portal unless they want the horses to be eligible to participate in Timed and Reported Workouts and/or Covered Horseraces.

Regardless of the transfer status in the HISA portal, a Provisionally Suspended Covered Person may not oversee the daily care of their horses.

During a Provisional Suspension, horses cannot be transferred to the trainer's assistant(s). Transfer requirements are applicable regardless of the stable's size.

 

TDN: In regards claimed horses that have a subsequent post-race positive: Who pays for the split sample? The owner of the horse before it was claimed? Or the new owner who claimed the horse?

The owner of the horse before it was claimed.

 

TDN: If the horse in question runs back and wins before the test results come back, would that win result in an automatic DQ?

No, assuming all samples collected in connection with that race are negative.

 

TDN: If the horse in question runs back and wins before the test results come back, and fails a post-race test for the same substance, would the previous trainer or the new trainer be held liable?

This would depend on the specific circumstances of the case (e.g., dates of races, substance(s) detected).

 

TDN: HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus initially explained that the 15-20 horses that had been administered an intra-articular joint injection too close to a workout (and which were made ineligible to race for 30 days) would be made public by HIWU. When TDN asked HIWU about this public disclosure, the organization initially stated that these horses would not be made public. HIWU has since changed its mind. What was the reason for the initial confusion? And why did HIWU change course?

Since no violation was being enforced against the trainers of these horses, HIWU was not and is not required to disclose the names of the horses affected. Notices of potential violations are not considered proven or adjudicated violations.

However, HIWU ultimately disclosed the names and will continue to do so in the name of transparency and at the request of HISA.

 

TDN: How did HIWU/HISA land upon this 30-day ineligibility to race when the stand down period for intra-articular joint injections before a race is 14-days?

The rules (4320) state that Covered Horses who breezed less than seven days or raced less than 14 days after an IA joint injection become ineligible to race or breeze for one month following the date of the injection(s).

TDN: How was it that horses on the list who were supposedly ineligible to race actually ran? Who at HISA or HIWU was responsible for this lapse? Will responsible parties face any consequences?

Furthermore, of these 15-20 horses that violated the intra-articular workout rule (and made ineligible to race for 30 days) will you take any actions regarding those horses who subsequently ran during the period of their suspension?

HIWU had not anticipated the large volume of violations related to this rule and given the newness of the ADMC program HIWU processed and notified the cases as quickly as they could. The horsemen continued to train and race their horses prior to receiving any notification, therefore they will not receive any penalties.

HISA is reviewing the rule and procedures and will make an announcement prior to July 15 on the status of the rule and related procedures subsequent to July 15. Additionally, there were numerous other potential ADMC violations that needed to be investigated and/or processed, creating a much larger than expected workload. HISA and HIWU's top priority is the safety and welfare of each horse and measures have been taken to address these operational concerns.

The post Q&A: HISA’s Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HIWU Releases Names of Horses Ineligible to Race Because of Intra-Articular Injections

by Bill Finley and Dan Ross

A day after telling the TDN that it was not obligated to make public the names of horses who were ineligible to race or work because they were found to have had an intra-articular injection within seven days of a timed workout, the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) reversed course Friday and published a list on its website of the 19 horses that were provisionally suspended.

Horses that violated Horseracing Safety and Integrity Authority (HISA) Rules 3313 and 4222, which cover intra-articular injection and the timeframe in which horses can race or work after having the injections, mandates that any horses that violate the rules are ineligible race or breeze for 30 days from the date of the injection. Trainers in violation of the rules were subject to 60-day suspensions. However, HISA announced late last month that the trainers would not be penalized and that the rules would not be enforced prior to July 15. HISA Chief Executive Lisa Lazarus said at the time that the delay in implementing the rule was needed because there was confusion among trainers regarding the specifics of the rule. She added that the temporary modification of enforcement of the rules was deemed the most “fair and equitable” way to proceed “given the number of violations.”

But HISA/HIWU still put the horses involved on a “provisionally suspended list.” According to a HISA statement released Friday, that was done so to “protect the horse's health.”

The list includes 17 trainers. Two horses had not started, therefore their trainers were not listed on Equibase. Among trainers, the most prominent names on the list are Norm Casse, Michael Stidham, Todd Pletcher, Linda Rice, and Jack Sisterson. The others are Carlos Munoz, Adriel Gonzalez, Betty Ott, Pedro Nazario, Brian Cook, Adrian Farias, David Fawkes, Victor Carrasco, Jr., John Ennis, Joseph Davis and Monica McGoey.

The release of the names of the horses left some important questions unanswered, namely why were some of the horses permitted to race while on the suspended list? The list of horses that raced while they were supposedly suspended numbers nine and does not include horses that may have worked out while they should have been ineligible to do so. Three of the horses on the list won while “suspended.” They are Trust Me (The Big Beast), Borgobythsea (English Channel) and Let's Go Mark (American Freedom).

At deadline for this story, a HIWU spokesperson had just responded to an email from TDN asking why the horses were allowed to race while suspended and who at HISA/HIWU was responsible for this apparent lapse? In an earlier email to HIWU, TDN had also asked if the horses who won while on the provisionally suspended list would be disqualified.

Here is the reply:

“HIWU had not anticipated the large volume of violations related to this rule and given the newness of the ADMC program, HIWU processed and notified the cases as quickly as they could. The horsemen continued to train and race their horses prior to receiving any notification, therefore they will not receive any penalties. HISA is reviewing the rule and procedures and will make an announcement prior to July 15 on the status of the rule and related procedures subsequent to July 15. Additionally, there were numerous other potential ADMC violations that needed to be investigated and/or processed, creating a much larger than expected workload. HISA and HIWU's top priority is the safety and welfare of each horse and measures have been taken to address these operational concerns.”

The list published Friday was through July 3. According to HISA, it will be updated.

The post HIWU Releases Names of Horses Ineligible to Race Because of Intra-Articular Injections appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Attorney Alan Pincus Joins The TDN Writers’ Room To Discuss HIWU Suspensions

With the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) issuing provisional suspensions in what seems like a rapid-fire manner, attorney Alan Pincus has been busy. He is representing trainer Mario Dominguez, who was hit with a provisional suspension after a horse he trained allegedly tested positive for cobalt, and has worked with trainer Jonathan Wong on his case. A Wong-trained horse allegedly tested positive for the banned substance Metformin.

Pincus joined the TDN Writers' Room podcast sponsored by Keeneland to discuss his cases and to express his views on what has transpired since HIWU took over drug testing and enforcement on May 22. Pincus, to put it mildly, is not a fan of what is going on. He was this week's Green Group Guest of the Week.

“The HISA regulations are written in a way that is truly evil,” Pincus said.

His complaints were many, starting with how violations of banned substances are dealt with by HISU. Once a positive has been determined for substances that are on the banned list, the trainer involved is immediately suspended. That takes place before a hearing can be held and before the results of a split sample are received.

“They give you very little chance to defend yourself,” Pincus said. “The worst part of it is that when you have a banned substance, they come to you. They give you a letter that says you have a positive for this drug. They tell you 'get out' and you're out that next day. What happens to a trainer who is told to get out? Their horses must be relocated to different trainers in different stalls. You lose your owners, you lose your horses, you lose your ability to make a living. In the case of Mr. Dominguez, he had a dozen horses. He was a small trainer working his way through and was doing okay. But like most trainers, he is living month to month. Now you've taken away his ability to make a living. You haven't charged him with anything, but he's dead. That's against due process.”

He continued: “He's yet to be charged with anything. They won't charge you until the split sample comes back. It's due momentarily. But his life has long since been over. He hasn't been charged with anything. What happens if the split sample comes back and it's under the level? What do they say? 'Oops, sorry that I destroyed your life.' The whole system is unconstitutional. It's based on the fact that you're guilty until proven innocent.”

Pincus also opined that there are substances on the banned substance list that don't belong there, that should be treated as relatively minor issues.

“Mac Robertson (who also received a provisional suspension from HIWU) got a positive for Regumate, another very low-level drug,” Pincus said. “It can't possibly be a banned substance. You're supposed to be looking for a Etorphine and EPO and things like that as banned substances. Not these things. It's ridiculous. You're going to see more, one a week. It's like Russian roulette out there. These guys, they're not cheaters. And besides the fact, you have very little chance under their system of winning. It has to stop.”

Pincus said the old way of doing things is preferable to a world under HIWU and the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA).

“They're not going to be able to do it better than the racing commissioners,” Pincus. “The racing commissions know about the game. They have experience in the game. The stewards are the most knowledgeable people in racing. Now we've gone and replaced them with a bunch of people who say things like, 'Let's change the whip to a popsicle stick with a piece of cotton on the end of it and look at some grainy films and see if that was a jockey winding up or he actually hit the horse.' It's stupid. The seventh whip strike is animal cruelty? Then what was the sixth whip strike, which is allowed?”

Elsewhere on the podcast, which is also sponsored by the Pennsylvania Horse Breeders Association, Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders, WinStar Farm, Lane's End, XBTV.com andhttps://www.threechimneys.com/ West Point Thoroughbreds, the team of Bill Finley, Randy Moss and Zoe Cadman, jumped into the controversy surrounding the extension of Bob Baffert's ban by Churchill Downs. Moss predicted that Baffert would fight the extension in court and that, this time, he would prevail. The team also took a look back at the win by West Will Power (Bernardini) in the GI Stephen Foster S., run this year at Ellis Park, and the game victory by Fort Bragg (Tapit) in the GIII Dwyer S. Looking ahead at this weekend's action, Finley focused in on the GII Suburban S. at Belmont. A race with a long history and one won by some of the sport's all-time greats, the Suburban, Finley said, has turned into a second-tier race. He argued that there are too many races on the NYRA calendar for older dirt males and said the best solution would be to discontinue the Suburban, which, this year, drew only five horses.

Click here to watch the Writers' Room podcast or here for the audio-only version.

The post Attorney Alan Pincus Joins The TDN Writers’ Room To Discuss HIWU Suspensions appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights