lisa lazarus | Horse Racing Free Tips

On TDN Writers’ Room Podcast, HISA’s Lazarus Admits Mistakes Have Been Made

Because of a number of developments over the last few weeks that can be characterized as missteps, Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) Chief Executive Officer Lisa Lazarus has had a chance to reflect on what's gone right and what's gone wrong since the Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) Program went into effect in May. Appearing as this week's Green Group Guest of the Week on the TDN Writers' Room podcast presented by Keeneland, Lazarus addressed the problems and made no attempt to sugarcoat them.

“If we look at the main thing that people are talking about, which is the rules covering intra-articular injections, workouts and races, we just got it wrong,” she said, referring to a rule that puts horses on a 30-day suspended list when they have had a workout within seven days of an injection or have raced with 14 days of the injection. HISA did not always enforce its own rules and several horses raced and/or worked while suspended.

She continued: “There's really nothing more I can say. But what I'm proud of is that we're a team and when we realize we get something wrong, we don't sort of sit on ego or stand on principle and say, we don't care. We're going to just power through. We try to fix it. So I realize that's going to always yield some criticism. And I accept that because, sure, ideally it will be better not to have gotten it wrong.”

Another issue was the initial rule which imposed a 60-day suspension on a trainer violating the intra-articular rule, which many saw as being too harsh of a penalty. HISA has amended the rule and first time offenders will no longer be subject to a suspension.

“The sanction was way too onerous given if you look at the entire structure of the sanctioning system,” she said. “It was just way too severe of a sanction to penalize a trainer for 60 days.”

One area in which HISA does not appear to be ready to make changes is how it deals with trainers who receive positives for substances that are on the banned substance list. In that case, the trainer is provisionally suspended almost immediately, before they have had a hearing and before the results of a split sample have come back. HISA critics have called this a case of “guilty until proven innocent.”

“I'm a huge believer in the provisional suspension,” she said. “I know it's tough and people have got to adjust to it and we've got to make sure that everything is okay in terms of how it operates. But it's a game changer because otherwise there's just too much incentive to kick things down the road. Do you really believe that any trainer would have come forward within 48 hours of a notification with information that was exculpatory if he or she was not really suspended? We need to get these things moving more quickly.”

Elsewhere on the podcast, which is also sponsored by the Pennsylvania Horse Breeders Association, Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders, NYRABets.com, WinStar Farm, XBTV.com andhttps://www.threechimneys.com/ West Point Thoroughbreds, the team of Bill Finley, Randy Moss and Zoe Cadman fondly remembered 2003 GI Kentucky Derby winner Funny Cide (Distorted Humor), who died earlier in the week of colic. The impending closure of Golden Gate Fields, announced Sunday by 1/ST Racing, was another major topic of discussion as was the coming weekend of racing, which will be topped by the GI Haskell S. at Monmouth. On the betting front, an explosive op/ed in the TDN written by Thoro-Graph's Jerry Brown about Computer Assisted Wagering (CAW) was on the menu, with the team agreeing with Brown's main premise, that CAW play is a serious problem that has to be addressed.

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

The post On TDN Writers’ Room Podcast, HISA’s Lazarus Admits Mistakes Have Been Made 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

Nunn’s Attorney Charges HISA With Hypocrisy In Dealing With Intra-Articular Injections

Attorney Drew Mollica understands that his client trainer Doug Nunn violated Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) Rule 3313, which prohibits trainers from running a horse within 14 days of an intra-articular joint injection or working them within seven days of the injection. What he doesn't understand is why his client has been suspended while at least 15 other trainers have been let off the hook for the same violation.

“This is the height of hypocrisy,” Mollica said. “He has been victimized by a system that is flawed.”

On June 26, HISA announced that it had temporarily suspended full enforcement of its intra-articular joint infection rules and that the rule covering workouts would not go into effect until July 15. According to HISA Chief Executive Lisa Lazarus, between 15 and 20 trainers had breached the rule surrounding intra-articular joint injections prior to a workout. Lazarus said the delay in implementing the rule was needed because there was confusion among trainers regarding the specifics of the rule.

“On the workout side, while it was mentioned in the education process, it seems that a lot of trainers just really didn't understand it, and most of the violations we saw were only off by one day,” she said. 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.”

Alexa Ravit, the director of communications and outreach for the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU), confirmed in an email to the TDN that Nunn's penalty was not excused because the injection was too close to a race while the other offenders were too close to a workout.

Monmouth Park Racetrack | Bill Denver/EQUI-PHOTO

According to Mollica, the horse in question, Smithwick's Spice (Frost Giant), was injected 12 days before racing on June 9 in an allowance race at Delaware Park, which the gelding won by three-quarters of a length. That, he argued, is less egregious than working a horse within seven days of an injection.

“The people who made the mistake of working within seven days put more stress on their horses than he did in the 12 days between the injection and racing,” he said. “The racing-versus-the-work argument is not logical because his horse had more time to recover.”

Mollica also said that if HISA had been doing its job the entry of the horse would not have been allowed.

“Doug Nunn's horse had an injection and it was reported on the horse's portal on May 31,” he said. “Everyone knew about it. HISA was supposed to now flag his entry. The horse was supposed to be ineligible to race. But they, maybe because of confusion, didn't do it. Doug Nunn was confused about the rules and didn't talk to his vet and didn't coordinate things properly. He entered the horse. The overnight was out eight days before the race. HISA never said 'Wait a minute, Doug, your horse isn't eligible.' They let him run on June 9. He wins on June 9. There was confusion as to what he was supposed to do. But Doug Nunn, as opposed to, fill in the blanks, the trainers who they let off, was treated differently. Those guys got a pass. That's not America to me.”

Mollica said that if possible confusion about the rules was the reason why trainers who violated the workout provision of the rule weren't suspended then there's no reason why the same argument shouldn't apply to racing a horse in violation of the rule.

“In this situation, there obviously was confusion,” he said. “How do I know? Because HISA themselves dropped the ball. Delaware Park was confused. HISA was confused. Doug was confused. Why is his any confusion any different than their confusion?”

Mollica also wants to know what trainers violated the workout rule. Although any possible suspensions were waived, their horses were ineligible to race within 30 days of the injection, which Mollica, argues, should make the names of those horses a matter of public record. He pointed to the June 29 story in the TDN in which Lazarus implied that the names of those horses would be released.

“When horses are suspended, you'll be able to figure that out,” Lazarus said at the time, pointing to HIWU's “public disclosures” webpage.

However, the names have not been disclosed and a request to HIWU by the TDN to release the names of the horses involved was denied.

Monmouth Park First Turn | Sarah Andrew

“Since the trainers were not Provisionally Suspended and Charge Letters were not issued to them because they only received a warning (as per HISA's notice), HIWU will not be publishing the names of the horses currently facing a 30-day period of Ineligibility due to breezing too soon after an IA injection,” Ravit wrote to the TDN in an e-mail. “For IA-related matters after July 15, the names of both the trainers and the horses will be published once a Charge Letter is issued to the trainer.”

But HISA's own rule 3620 makes it clear that public disclosure is required. It reads: Rule 3620. Public Disclosure
(a) The Agency shall Publicly Disclose the resolution of an alleged violation of the Protocol no later than 20 calendar days after:
(1) the final decision;
(2) a resolution between the Agency and the Covered Person; or
(3) the withdrawal of a charge or a final decision finding of no violation

Why won't HISA/HIWU release the names of the horses that worked within the seven-day period, even though their own rules say they must? Mollica said he didn't want to speculate but he was quick to fault them for a lack of transparency.

“My problem is the lack of transparency and the lack of fairness,” he said. “What's good for the rich and famous trainers should be good for Doug Nunn. The lack of transparency shows because Lisa Lazarus said you'll know the names of those trainers when we publish the names of the suspended horses. Now we understand they are not going to release the names of those horses. Meanwhile, Doug was publicly villainized with his ruling up there on their website, yet we don't even know who these people who were given a pass are. So tell us. Transparency is the greatest disinfectant. We obviously have an infection. Why are we not disinfecting it?”

Nunn's violation can yield a suspension of up to 60 days but Mollica said he has reached an agreement with HISA and HIWU and that his client will receive a 30-day suspension. The situation has left him asking a lot of questions and he doesn't have all the answers, but he believes that Nunn was treated differently because he's a small-time trainer. Based at Monmouth Park, he's won six races this year from 59 starters and has 305 career victories.

“If you are going to start opening up loopholes, you can't open up loopholes for some and not for others,” Mollica said. “Doug Nunn is a victim of being a small guy in a big world. I do think he's being treated differently, like a lot of little guys are. This is stacked against the little guy. They excoriated Nunn and let others off and they won't even tell us who they are.”

The post Nunn’s Attorney Charges HISA With Hypocrisy In Dealing With Intra-Articular Injections appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post