horseracing integrity and safety act | Horse Racing Free Tips

Q&A with HISA’s Lisa Lazarus: Part One

Last week, an important piece of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) puzzle was slotted into place when the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority's board of directors announced that Drug Free Sport International (DFSI) had been selected as the enforcement agency for the Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) arm of the program.

DFSI has helped administer drug testing programs to a slew of human sports organizations, like the National Football League, NCAA, National Basketball Association, Ladies Professional Golf Association, the PGA Tour, NASCAR and Major League Baseball.

Last week's announcement included a new wrinkle in the enforcement side of the ADMC program: DFSI will establish the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU), led by a five-member advisory council.

To discuss DFSI's newly minted role within HISA, the evolving shape of the ADMC program and implementation of the safety program on July 1, TDN spoke with HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus. The following has been edited for brevity and for clarity.

TDN: Why did you choose DFSI as the enforcement agency over some of the other possible organizations touted?

Lazarus: The first and most compelling reason is that they have a tremendous amount of experience in drug testing and test planning. As you would know by now, they handle all of the drug testing for the NFL, for the NBA, for Major League Baseball, NCAA, PGA Tour, NASCAR. They really have a wide range of experience, and they've operated in some really very challenging circumstances.

There's going to be a heavy lift, right, to get this all done by Jan. 1. [But] the amount of testing in horse racing is going to be at around the level of what [DFSI are] doing right now, if you add all their testing together. They do more human testing than any other agency in the U.S.

Sarah Andrew

The reason why I was also really impressed with them and convinced that they could make it happen is that around the time that COVID began–and a lot of these testing agencies realized that without sport they'd be really challenged, sort of economically–was [DFSI] quickly dovetailed to COVID testing. They very quickly launched a very good and effective COVID testing program that helped bring a lot of the major sports back into operation. What they were able to show us about how they made that happen in a relatively short timeframe, how successful it was, was one of the things that convinced us that they'd be up for the job.

The other thing was the value proposition. Ultimately, it's the industry that's funding HISA, and so, we want to be sure that whatever money we're spending, we're spending efficiently and wisely. That there's a good value proposition there. We felt that they did. And they also embraced the concept that we had to create this Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit, which I modeled after very successful international units, like the Athletics Integrity Unit, Tennis Integrity Unit. It's been the new wave in the last five or so years, and I really love the idea of trying to make that happen for horse racing. They've shared that vision and we're happy to get behind it and support it.

TDN: The Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit–this five-member advisory council–what is their role exactly?

Lazarus: So, the way that it's working is that HISA has entered into a contract with the Center for Drug Free Sport, and the Center for Drug Free Sport is creating this Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit. There are a couple reasons why we're doing it this way.

One is the horse racing testing business essentially is so big that it really requires, we believe, its own separate entity and its own sort of separate business model. Also, DFSI did not have sufficient existing expertise in some of the areas that we required to run the program effectively…

TDN: Which areas are those?

Lazarus: Those would be prosecutions, like result management–they didn't have an existing legal staff to carry those prosecutions out. Just take a step back for one second. It's very unusual for the testing agency to also do the prosecutions–[DFSI are] not doing that for other clients. That's something we have to build separately. We [also] wanted to put a lot of resources into investigations and they didn't have sufficient in-house resources for investigations.

So, by building this integrity unit, it's allowing us to hire and bring people in that have expertise in those areas.

TDN: You've said the new unit will require 32 employees to do everything from lab accreditation to results reporting, investigation and education. So, those 32 employees will fall under the remit of the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit?

Lazarus: Correct. While some of those employees are existing Center for Drug Free Sport employees that will move over, it's going to be a separate unit that operates on its own. The advisory council is essentially like a smaller board that has the expertise in each of these different pillars to help guide the full-time employees.

TDN: But ultimately it's DFSI who will sign off on whatever the advisory council suggests?

Lazarus: Yes.

Sarah Andrew

TDN: How far along are you in getting that 32-strong workforce together?

Lazarus: I would say we have about half of the key people and I expect in a couple weeks from now, we'll have all of the top people identified and agreements reached with them.

To hire the more junior workers below might take a little bit more time, but we don't expect those to be as difficult to fill–[those are] people that you need to execute the testing, some regional directors and all that. That might take us another few weeks after those two weeks, but I'm confident we're going to have everyone in place by the end of the summer.

TDN: Do you have an idea of cost?

Lazarus: If you saw the budget that was made public, you would see that there's about $5 million to $6 million in anti-doping startup costs for 2022, which also includes some tech costs, because there's various apps, things that we're going to need to build. For 2023, we don't have those costs yet because part of what we want the advisory council to help us decide is the optimum level of tests.

There are three categories of tests in horse racing. We have your out of competition, you have your TCO2 for milk shaking, and then you have regular race-day testing. We have some research and some ideas of what those numbers are optimally, but that's part of what the advisory council is going to help us decide. It'll also involve some determination around what's the right amount of money to spend on investigations. That's part of their role.

TDN: With less than two months to submit the ADMC rules to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), specifically, what parts of the materials that U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has put together will DFSI use?

Lazarus: Something like 90%. I mean there's only 5%, 10% where we're actually going through to make sure that we haven't missed anything, that everything is fit for purpose.

TDN: Will DFSI take a binary approach to regulating medications like USADA outlined with primary and secondary substances? Or will it look more like the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) model rules' alphanumeric system?

Lazarus: It'll be 100% only based on the [World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)] code system, right? You saw the drafted rules and proposed rules that were based on a WADA code philosophy structure but were modified to be sensible for horses. So, that's essentially what it's going to look like. It will not be the ARCI model rules. There are some things in the ARCI model rules that are working really well, that we're going to borrow and integrate, but the system itself is going to be a WADA-based system, philosophically.

TDN: How far along are you in putting together the regulated therapeutics list?

Lazarus: That is something we hope to have together by the end of the summer. That's not something that's going to be subject to review.

TDN: Not?

Lazarus: I'm sorry, we're not going to be ready to release that list when we release the [ADMC] rules for public comment. But everything [ultimately] has to be approved by the FTC. I didn't mean to suggest that wasn't the case.

Coglianese

TDN: Some industry stakeholders have voiced concern about transparency aspects of the USADA materials. For example, “A” sample results aren't necessarily going to be made public until the “B” samples are returned. Is that something DFSI will address?

Lazarus: Yes, that's something that we're still discussing. We recognize how important transparency is. I come from the International Equestrian Federation and their system is to publish as soon as the A sample results are available. They're published unless it involves a minority, so a child, basically. That's a system I personally favor, but we're still evaluating what the right system [is] going to be for this program.

TDN: What laboratories will be used come Jan. 1? Will DFSI bring in its own set of labs?

Lazarus: No. So, the way the system is built is to allow for some fluidity so that we don't have any problem to be up and running January 1st. The law actually provides that any lab accredited by the RMTC [Racing Medication & Testing Consortium] will have a one-year provisional accreditation while we start accrediting the labs. There are nine labs that are currently accredited by the RMTC.

TDN: Does the variance in testing capability between those batch of labs pose any legal liability under this uniform banner?

Lazarus: You raise a really good question. That's something that is going to be a part of the program, which is the harmonization piece. We're going to require the labs to be harmonized, so that they [ultimately] reach agreement where screening limits are consistent from lab to lab once they're reaccredited. It would not be a success if labs had different levels of positive test assessments. If the levels or the testing had any discrepancies, that wouldn't be optimal, obviously, so that's something that we're going to work very hard at achieving.

TDN: How quickly are you hoping that harmonization process to occur?

Lazarus: Obviously as soon as possible. That's not my area of expertise. We have Dr. Larry Bowers [former chief science officer at USADA], who's going to be our resource in that regard. I don't know off my head, but obviously we're hoping to work toward it quite quickly. And we also hope that with a smaller number of labs that are accredited, that will be something achievable [without] a whole lot of difficulty or challenge.

TDN: You had talked before, prior to DFSI coming on board, about the whereabouts program being phased in over time. Is that still the case?

Lazarus: Yes, we're looking at the optimal whereabouts program. It's something that we hope we'll be able to get off the ground fairly quickly. The question is: Given that most horses are stabled at the race tracks, what does a whereabout system really need to be?

A horse that needs to be available for testing [within] several hours notice, we need to know where the horse is. But we've realized, and as we've thought through this, that for the vast majority of horses, we already have that information. So, it's going to take us a little bit of time to figure out what the best program is, but we do expect to have one within the first couple years.

Coady

TDN: 5 Stones intelligence (5Si) is going to be bought on board as an investigative body. What layers of transparency will surround the investigative work that 5 Stones does to make sure that that work will hold up legal scrutiny?

Lazarus: The first thing I'll say is that the reason why we thought it just made a lot of sense to involve 5 Stones–and they were eager to be supportive–is that there already are entities like The Jockey Club [and] The Meadowlands that have spent considerable amount of funds to have 5 Stones investigate actors in racing. So why wouldn't we want to take the benefit of their knowledge, their research, their information base to help us?

From my standpoint, with regards to the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit, our job is not to prosecute actors, or to make sure things stand up in court. The way that we'll use the investigative resource is to try to help us figure out who the cheaters are and what they're using and when to test them and for what. And that's how we'll mostly use the investigative resource.

Obviously, if they're used for prosecutions, I think they're fairly capable and also experienced at making sure that evidence is strong. But for us, it's really about getting the information that allows us to test in a way that's really efficient.

If you test humans, horses, anyone without that investigative resource, you usually have about 1% to 2% hit rate in terms of positive tests. When you use investigative resources, that goes up to 15% to 20%. So, it's a huge difference.

TDN: It's been discussed how a centralized database could be used to identify outliers, potential cheats and whatnot, as well as to help with the safety side of things. How far along is that database from being fully built and operational?

Lazarus: In one way we're far along and one way we're not far along at all.

We've already started the process of registering horses, so the database is live, it's available. If you go to our website, you could register yourself and your horses. But we don't have a huge body of data yet because the registration processes just started in the last couple of weeks.

However, come July 1, if you want to participate in the covered horse race, which is in any horse racing jurisdiction that exports their signal, then you'll have to register with us. So, we expect, in a few months, to have a very considerable database. Then we'll let the veterinary experts help us figure out how to use it in a way that's going to help horses, help keep everyone safe.

TDN: Do you have a rough date with which you'd like to see something really substantive up, a close approximation of an ideal end goal for this database?

Lazarus: I think a year from July 1 [2022]–which is our deadline [for implementation]–we'll be in a position to really have the data that we need to perform the sort of analysis that we think will make a difference. Two or three years down the line, it'll be even better.

Note: Part two of this Q&A will encompass the working relationship between the Authority and DFSI, media criticisms of the new enforcement agency and potential problems when HISA launches in less than two months.

The post Q&A with HISA’s Lisa Lazarus: Part One appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

California First State to Opt Into HISA

California became the first state to opt into the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) enforcement structure on Thursday when the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) voted 7-0 to collect and remit fees on behalf of the new federal HISA Authority.

For 2022, HISA has assessed California's portion of the Authority's budget to be $1.4 million, a figure that is based on starts and purses, and amounts to roughly 10% of the overall nationwide budget. It includes only the safety portion of the HISA program that will go into effect July 1 (and not the still-in-limbo drug testing protocols that won't yet be up and running).

California will fund its commitment by recalculating market access fees derived from advance-deposit wagering (ADW).

Commissioners articulated a consensus during the board's monthly meeting that if the CHRB didn't proactively step up to support HISA, the state's tracks, horse owners, and other industry stakeholders would have to not only pay the costs, but figure out how to set up and staff a new infrastructure to enforce the federal regulations.

“We had a meeting with associations, owner groups and the California Thoroughbred Trainers last week,” said CHRB executive director Scott Chaney. “And most voiced support for this. Because tracks, it's my impression, don't want to be burdened with getting a bill and having to figure out who's going to pay it and how they're going to pay it.”

The unanimous Apr. 21 vote was conditional upon receiving statutory approval to allow state employees to enforce federal rules and to make budgetary and spending changes that the CHRB is not yet able to do.

“We, the CHRB, do not currently have that authority,” Chaney said. “But we are seeking it through budgetary language, which would amend the Business and Professions Code to allow us to do this, in addition to a budget change proposal, which would give us the spending authority to include the Authority's fee in our budget.”

Chaney underscored to commissioners that he does not expect that process to be complicated or cumbersome. It will likely be accomplished by attaching what is known as a “trailer bill” to the state's annual budget legislation.

Chaney added that government officials have been made aware by CHRB staff that the HISA changeover is in the pipeline, and that agencies he's dealt with have been “really accommodating,” to the point that he is “hopeful that it wouldn't be a big deal.”

Commissioner Wendy Mitchell termed partnering with HISA as “a no-brainer, only because if we don't opt in, then [the responsibility will] go directly to the tracks and we don't have a say. And certainly, you know, you can't fight city hall. So we should be part of the process versus opting out.”

Other states haven't been as welcoming. Facing a May 1 deadline to declare in-or-out status on the collection and remittance of fees, state racing commissions in New Jersey, Maryland and Texas have already said no to HISA.

“While short-term [for] some states it feels good to opt out, kind of to be obstructionists. [But] in the long run, I think this is actually a cost savings for the industry,” Chaney said.

“Kentucky and Minnesota appear to be leaning toward opting in,” Chaney told commissioners prior to the vote. “[New York] initially indicated that they were opting out. From what I understand, in talking to some of their officials, it's an open question now. They're kind of warming more up to the concept as it became more clear.”

Chaney said that details about the Authority are emerging rapidly, so it won't be unusual to see other jurisdictions altering their opinions on whether to opt in or out.

“Frankly, this has come much better into focus in the last month, and so everyone is trying to get up to speed with respect to the implications to their particular state,” Chaney said.

So what will change?

HISA's Authority is tasked with regulating both racing safety and anti-doping and medication control. The safety rules have already been approved by the Federal Trade Commission and will be phased in starting July 1. Snags in getting a medication control agency under contract have caused that portion of the program to be delayed.

With respect to the accreditation and “best practices” safety protocols, Chaney said California will see little change in those areas, because “our current regulations were largely the model for the Authority's structure.”

Chaney continued: “For the most part, the rules mirror ours with two notable exceptions, The shoeing rule is more restrictive than our current one, which I applaud. And second, the crop rule is less restrictive than our current rule, which I find very troubling.”

The HISA whip regulations have the same six-strike limit as California's. But HISA will permit using the whip in the overhead manner, which California does not.

If a jurisdiction doesn't undertake the enforcement of these new rules, “The Authority has to supply another set of stewards and all the things that it's going to take to actually enforce the safety regulations.”

And if that happens, Chaney added, tracks and stakeholders can expect to “be billed for that additional expense.”

On the drug enforcement side of the program–which isn't expected to be up and running until at least 2023–Chaney said that the stakeholders the CHRB met with last week did express concerns about that process and its associated expenses.

“There are some question marks that still linger, notably how much the anti-doping and medication control part will cost,” Chaney said.
Commissioner Thomas Hudnut said he supported the HISA opt-in. “But I do want to register concerns about the lack of clarity thus far when it comes to anti-doping measures,” he added.

Hudnut said that giving control “to the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which is an on-again, off-again proposition, is probably not very good. We have a record of being a leader in this state in testing. The Maddy labs and UC-Davis are the recognized top dogs in the field, and I think it would be a great disservice, not only to our state, but to racing in general, were they not part of the solution.”

Chaney said that once the HISA Authority identifies an agency to run that program, he doesn't think there will be “any real question” about whether the Maddy lab will continue to do testing. But the scope of the work and its funding will still have to be negotiated.

So who ultimately pays?

Once the Authority begins extracting fees from states to fund its budget, it's up to the states (either via their commissions, the tracks, or stakeholders) to figure out how to pay for the oversight.

Chaney said that “associations could structure this in any way, but most seem to be contemplating a fee per start paid by the owner. I think that many tracks are worried about this approach, as it may create a competition among tracks based on how much the Authority fee is to start in a particular race.”

By going the route of using the ADW revenue stream to fund its portion of the program, horse owners will be spared direct expenses.

According to the California Business and Professions Code (CBPC), the market access fee “means the amount of ADW handle remaining after the payment of winning wagers, and after the payment of contractual compensation, if any, to an ADW provider.” Market access fees are then distributed in accordance with a long list of other CBCP provisions.

As Chaney explained it, “There are several distributions from market access fees. Those wouldn't change. What would happen is, the stakeholders would come up with a separate formula [for] this particular expense as well.”

So does that mean bettors will end up being stuck with paying California's HISA bill?

That topic didn't come up during Thursday's meeting, but TDN asked the CHRB for a clarification.

“No change in takeout. Stakeholders will just be voluntarily giving up a bigger share of their revenue from ADW. Won't affect bettors at all,” wrote CHRB spokesperson Mike Marten.

The post California First State to Opt Into HISA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

THA Chairman Alan Foreman Joins Writers’ Room

Alan Foreman, the chairman and CEO of the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, joined the TDN Writers' Room presented by Keeneland Tuesday afternoon as the Green Group Guest of the Week. Discussing the upcoming 2022 MATCH series for mid-Atlantic horses, a program he spearheaded, and providing updates on the scheduled renovation projects at Pimlico and Laurel, Foreman also called upon his legal expertise to weigh in on Bob Baffert's appeal of the GI Kentucky Derby disqualification and why the THA supports the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act.

While many in the racing industry lamented the breakdown in negotiations between the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority to implement a drug enforcement program, Foreman said he was bullish on HISA's separate safety program, set to take effect July 1.

“The HISA Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program relates to medication, while the Safety Program relates to every other aspect of the health, safety and welfare of the horse and rider,” he explained. “I think that's the most important part of the HISA program, because horses breaking down on the track is our worst nightmare, and horses aren't dying because of medication. When horses break down, it's multi-factorial. For example, we just did our review of the breakdowns in the mid-Atlantic region for the past year. Maryland was having its lowest incidence of breakdown in its history until the track went bad and failed at Laurel in October, and we had a cluster of eight breakdowns in a span of three weeks. We got right on it, but it blew the numbers. So there was a racetrack surface issue. Not a medication issue, not a training issue. The value of the HISA safety program is to work with everyone on racing surfaces and identifying horses at risk so they don't get on the track when they shouldn't be. That program and the uniformity that HISA is going to bring is why it got our support.”

The conversation later turned to the legal back-and-forth involving Baffert over the past year, with Foreman saying, “When we talk about HISA and the manner in which our rules are adjudicated, it isn't so much that our underlying rules are problematic, it's the enforcement process and the way justice is meted out and people can game the system. At the end of the day, I think it all went downhill after Bob's press conference. The rumor was that there had been a positive test at the Derby, and there was no confidentiality so he actually got out in front of the story. But when he came out and said he had no idea how it could have happened, and within five days, the story came out as to how it happened, he was boxed into a corner and he wasn't prepared to accept responsibility and take the punishment. So this has played out in a sense where there's no exit strategy, from either side, frankly. Churchill, by taking the action it did and making very clear that it wasn't backing down, started to press the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission to move more expeditiously. And here we are now, but it just took way too long, and that's not acceptable to anybody.”

Elsewhere on the show, which is also sponsored by Coolmore, Lane's End, the Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders, XBTV, West Point Thoroughbreds and Legacy Bloodstock, the writers raved about a tremendous weekend of racing and gave their early impressions on the prospective GI Kentucky Derby and GI Longines Kentucky Oaks fields after the final round of prep races. Click here to watch the show; click here for the audio-only version or find it on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

The post THA Chairman Alan Foreman Joins Writers’ Room appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HISA Under Discussion at ARCI Conference’s Tuesday Session

LEXINGTON, KY–The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) was a popular topic of discussion on Tuesday at the Association of Racing Commissioners International's (ARCI) 88^th Annual Conference on Safe Horses and Honest Sport.

Early in the day's session, a panel was held on the potential legal issues that could arise with the implementation of HISA. John Roach, HISA's general counsel, joined panelists Nolan Jackson and Joel Turner of Frost, Brown, Todd, LLC.

The first issue examined concerned HISA's possible qualification as a Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), a federal law that places special emphasis on open meetings, public involvement and reporting. The legal implications of if HISA does qualify could mean that its authority would be required to give advanced notice of its meetings and make meetings available to the general public. Jackson said that HISA's authority appears to have taken the position that FACA does not apply.

“It's important to note that HISA has not complied with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, at least not up until this point in time,” he explained. “Perhaps that is because FACA is fairly narrow in scope. It only applies to advisory committees that are established by law or utilized by the federal government in some way. It only applies to federal advisory committees that exist to provide advise or recommendations to the federal government, generally meaning the President or a federal agency of some kind.”

The second issue put forward during the panel focused on the six-month limbo period later this year concerning HISA's anti-doping and medication control policies.

While HISA's Racetrack Safety Program is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2022, yesterday HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus said they will be making an announcement about an agreement with an enforcement agency for the Anti-Doping and Medication Regulation Control (ADMC) program by next month and hope to launch the program on January 1, 2023. While she said yesterday that until then, states would continue with their own oversight, several legal questions were brought up in the panel regarding potential issues that could arise for state regulators.

“I think we have a couple different issues here,” Turner said. “First, HISA has not promulgated the rules yet, so you [regulators] are scratching your heads and asking what happens after July 1. Second, there's a statement [within the act] of exclusive and independent jurisdiction that would seem to raise the question about whether or not you can continue to regulate on a state-by-state basis.”

Turner emphasized HISA's burden to create a detailed anti-doping and medication regulation program in the short period since Congress passed the bill enabling HISA in December 2020.

“Under the circumstances, I think it's very understandable why we haven't gotten to the point where we have medication and anti-doping rules,” he said. “They're very complex to begin with and to get consensus on those rules can be very challenging. I'm looking at it from the perspective of an owner or trainer that is charged with a medication violation after July 1. What is the lawyer going to tell them about how he can defend that case? In this instance, we really have a gap.”

“The problem is that the authority's jurisdiction as defined in the act is really broad,” Jackson later added. “The act talks about national, exclusive, independent jurisdiction on the part of the authority. It leaves little room for states to think about what they're left to address. I think that while HISA has taken the position that states are able to continue enforcing their rules beyond July 1, there is an expressed preemption clause in the act, albeit specific, that could be an obstacle if this were to come up in litigation.”

While Jackson and Turner expressed their opinion that there was a definite gray area for regulators regarding anti-doping and medication regulation within the later half of this year, Roach said he believed the matter was much more clear cut, stating that HISA has taken the position that they will not preempt until they act.

“As it relates to the preemption issue, the text in this statute is pretty clear to me,” he said. “We do not preempt your laws until we promulgate regulations that are approved by the Federal Trade Commission. If we have not promulgated, you are free to continue to do what you are doing.”

Roach used the example of regulations regarding the riding crop to explain further. On July 1, HISA standards regarding the riding crop will go into effect because they are addressed in the Racetrack Safety Program. Other issues concerning safety on the racetrack that are not addressed in HISA's new regulation–in his example he mentioned drunkenness on the backside–will be left for the states to take on themselves.

Roach pointed out the advantages for state regulators once the ADMC program does go into effect as cases begin going through HISA's appeal system.

“When we talk about cases in the news for drug violations that have gone on for over a year, once HISA is up and running, the state courts have no more role,” he explained. “We will have a consistent approach and from a legal standpoint, you're not going to have to worry about injunctions in all different kinds of state courts. The one assurance I can give you, whether it's with lawsuits filed or any kind of legal issue, we are hiring the best that we can find to help us make sure we can implement this act in a way that can be defended at every point because we know how important it is to this industry.”

Roach later added that if an issue does arise in a state before January 1, 2023, HISA and possibly the Federal Trade Commission would be available to extend their assistance.

Later in Tuesday's session Steve Keech, HISA's Technology Director, gave a presentation on HISA's database registration process. The database is in the works now but has no set launch date. It will include data on horses and industry participants involved in 64 different racing-related occupations.

Keech gave an overview on how an owner will register within their system and he also explained that the system will link with other databases such as Equibase and InCompass Solutions. The database will include information on every horse in the system, from their current location and vaccination record to when they were last on a vet's list.

The 'Q and A' section of Keech's session led to much discussion on what this data would be used for and what would happen if an individual did not register. Attendees raised questions regarding how grooms would know to register, noting the current challenges behind getting backside workers appropriately licensed. They also asked who would be a responsible if a groom did not register.

Lazarus jumped in to explain that their authority is aware of and working through these issue. She said HISA will soon be launching a communication campaign to spread the word and that they have already asked several jockeys for help in advising on how to make the registration process user friendly. Lazarus explained that the program will also be offered in Spanish and said that no one will be responsible if an individual is not registered, instead it will become a question of whether or not they will be able to participate and be allowed onto the backside.

The ARCI convention continues April 13 with several presentations including an analysis of the pending federal court challenges to HISA.

The post HISA Under Discussion at ARCI Conference’s Tuesday Session appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post