HISA To Fund Three Scientific Studies On The Use of Furosemide

Following a recommendation from its Furosemide Advisory Committee (FAC), the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority's Board of Directors approved $773,500 in grant funding for three scientific studies on the use of furosemide (also known as “Lasix”) to be conducted over the next two years by the Nationwide Children's Hospital, the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine and Washington State University, HISA said in a Wednesday release.

The studies will examine the 48-hour period before the start of a Covered Horserace, including the effects of furosemide on equine health and the integrity of competition. Researchers will be required to present final reports on their findings to the FAC on or before Jan. 31, 2026.

“The Furosemide Advisory Committee is grateful to the expert researchers who responded to our request for proposals and look forward to partnering with Nationwide Children's Hospital, the University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine and Washington State University on this important research,” said FAC Chairman Dr. Scott Palmer, VMD. “The lifelong health and well-being of Thoroughbreds is our top priority. This work will help ensure we have policies in place to safeguard these remarkable animals and the integrity of the sport.”

Under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, HISA is required to fund scientific research on the topic of furosemide to inform the FAC's future recommendations to the HISA Board on whether and how to amend their existing furosemide regulations.

A request for proposals was issued by HISA in August 2023. Out of those submitted, the following were recommended by the FAC and approved:

Examining Associations Between Furosemide Treatment & Racehorse Health and Welfare

Principal Investigator: Amanda Waller, Bsc, PhD, Research Scientist, Center for Clinical and Translational Research, Nationwide Children's Hospital
This study will examine the effects of race day furosemide treatment on the health and welfare of Thoroughbreds as well as their long-term racing performance. An analysis will be conducted to assess the association between pre-race furosemide administration and fatal injury, while also comparing the performance metrics–including lifetime earnings, career length, lifetime starts, starts per year, placings and average speed figures–of horses that raced exclusively on furosemide as 2-year-olds and horses that did not receive furosemide as juveniles.

 

Effects of Repeated Furosemide Administration on Electrolyte Homeostasis and Bone Density in Healthy Adult Exercising Thoroughbreds

Principal Investigator: SallyAnne L. DeNotta, DVM, PhD, DACVIM., Clinical Assistant Professor, Large Animal Medicine, University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine
This study will examine the effects of repeated furosemide administration on electrolyte homeostasis, parathyroid response and urinary electrolyte excretion in exercising adult Thoroughbreds. The study will also examine the effects of repeated administration on bone density and strength using minimally invasive methods of measurement, including DEXA scan and OsteoProbe.

 

Does Pre-Race Administration of Furosemide to Thoroughbred Racehorses Prolong Their Racing Careers?

Principal Investigator: Warwick Bayly, BVSc, PhD, DACVIM, Professor, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Washington State University
This study will examine the impact of severe exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) on horses' careers and the health of the racing industry more broadly. In doing so, the study will assess whether regular furosemide treatment is associated with more career starts and greater longevity and the impact of banning furosemide for 2-year-olds on the duration of their careers and number of lifetime starts. The study will also seek to determine the extent to which severe EIPH impacts the number of subsequent starts, the periods between them and, when applicable, the time between the diagnosis of severe EIPH and retirement.

The post HISA To Fund Three Scientific Studies On The Use of Furosemide appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HISA Proposes $80.9 Million 2024 Budget

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) has released its proposed budget for 2024, totaling $80.96 million, including $38.7 million earmarked for the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU), the drug testing arm of the federal program.

The total fee assessments for the states and racetracks come out to $78.5 million, but available credits potentially bring that number down to $59.8 million.

HISA's 2023 total budget was initially set at $72.5 million. That number was subsequently revised down to $66.4 million earlier this year.

The proposed 2024 budget was issued on Aug. 17, but the opportunity to publicly comment on it ended on Thursday, Aug. 24.

While the proposed budget is listed as a press release on the HISA website, it was not sent out in wide circulation via email like other HISA press releases. On Aug. 9, however, the Authority included in an email on 2022 tax filings a warning that the budget would be released “in the coming days.”

The proposed budget is broken down among the following HISA-related departments: the racetrack safety program, the Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) program, technology, and administration costs.

Among the big-ticket items, $21.2 million has been allocated for lab testing and $9.5 million for “professional services.”

The latter is a broad category denoting things like “external support for critical functions ranging from arbitration fees to companies that support our IT infrastructure and man our help desk,” explained HISA spokesperson Mandy Minger.

Some $3.6 million is set aside for legal fees, including the cost of lawsuits.

Total revenues from fines related to the racetrack safety and ADMC programs, along with other sources of income like those from lab testing, come to $3.6 million.

According to Minger, these revenues will be used to reduce the net expenses, “and therefore reduce the 2024 assessments.”

Nearly $23 million of HIWU's $38.7 million operating budget goes toward “collection costs,” with $6.7 million going toward salaries.

The total price tag of operating the entire ADMC program–which includes that for HIWU, as well as drug testing and adjudication cost—comes to $59.5 million.

The Authority's loan repayments total $1.25 million.

In a May Q&A, HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus told the TDN that The Jockey Club, the Breeders' Cup and the NTRA had all provided loans to the program, and that they were “pretty much no interest” loans designed to cover short-term operational costs.

While the proposed budget for next year is more detailed than previous iterations, it is still lacking in granular line-item details explaining exactly how the money is being used, said National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA) CEO Eric Hamelback.

“We are not surprised by the increase [from 2022 totals], but here we are once again not able to truly assess the budget due to the lack of transparency in the breakdown of the figures,” said Hamelback.

Individual racing commissions can choose to cover the assessed fee for the state–broadly speaking, a figure calculated on a formula based on total starts and purses.

Where commissions enter into a voluntary agreement with the Authority for existing personnel to conduct tasks like sample collection, conducting investigations, and adjudicating violations, the state is privy to a credit on its total assessment.

According to the proposed budget for next year, the total to be assessed comes to $78.5 million, with $18.7 million available in industry credits.

The states that decline to cover these financial assessments pass the burden of responsibility onto the racetracks in the state.

Yet to be issued, the 2024 fee assessments for the states and racetracks must be made public by Nov. 1 this year.

“We anticipate that the assessment will be released in October,” said Minger, who added that the same formula to assess these fees will be used again.

The current state and racetrack assessments are a bone of contention among various racing jurisdictions, however.

According to Hamelback, several states are “looking at the possibilities” for next year “of not sending their signal out in order to maintain racing” because of the financial burden posed by these fees.

Such a move would mirror the state of Texas, which has maintained since the advent of HISA a blackout on sending its simulcasting signal out of state in order to operate outside of the federal program's jurisdiction.

Hamelback added, however, he was not positioned to publicly name the states considering this option.

The post HISA Proposes $80.9 Million 2024 Budget appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Proposed HISA Rule Change: Emergency Power to Suspend Live Racing?

The opening months of 2019 were still fresh in California lawmakers' minds when they passed a bill that summer giving the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) emergency authority to suspend racing at a track without the hitherto required 10-day public notice period.

The precipitating event, of course, was the spate of equine fatalities that had covered Santa Anita, and the racing industry in general, under a pall of public condemnation–the exact same kind of scrutiny Churchill Downs has faced these past few weeks, culminating with the announced switch of racing venue to Ellis Park.

As events have unfolded at Churchill Downs, representatives from the Horse Racing Integrity Act (HISA) have made it clear that they could stop the track from exporting their simulcasting signal out of state, if they deemed it necessary.

Here, however, it should also be noted that throughout this period, HISA officials have repeatedly stressed how the agency's actions have been in unison with both Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC).

But the ability to block the export of a simulcasting signal is not enough, say several non-HBPA affiliated horsemen's groups, including the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association (KTA), the Thoroughbred Owners of California, the New York Thoroughbred Horseman's Association, and the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.

Since the earliest days of the HISA rulemaking process, they have argued for a clear set of rules giving HISA the discretion to completely suspend racing at a facility by removing its accreditation in the event of a safety-related crisis.

“Some of these owner-trainer groups feel so strongly about this issue,” said Chauncey Morris, executive director of the KTA, who stressed that he believes Churchill Downs, the KHRC and HISA have taken the correct steps throughout the past few weeks.

In answer to a series of questions, HISA spokesperson, Mandy Minger, wrote that the federal agency is indeed considering such a rule change.

In background conversations with track officials, however, they've stressed the disruptive nature of such actions, which can have profound economic impacts on a wide swath of stakeholders. Others warn that such powers need clear definition.

Scott Chaney, CHRB executive director, agrees that the threat alone of pulling a track's simulcasting signal “is not a complete solution,” but the key question for him is this: What criteria would HISA use to justify the ability to suspend racing completely at a facility?

“Is it purely fatality based?” he said. “Or is it more response based–like, is the response of the track satisfactory?”

The Proposal

HISA cited Turf Paradise back in January for several safety-related problems like faulty track rails and a subpar racetrack surface maintenance program. Track management ultimately complied, but only after the HISA Authority applied the thumbscrews of a possible simulcasting export block.

In the Turf Paradise situation, therefore, there were clear racetrack safety violations that HISA used as enforcement leverage.

But what happens in a situation where a track experiences a rash of fatalities and there is no clear actionable violation? What if management at that track is not as cooperative with HISA's overtures as Churchill Downs has been? Then add to the mix the growing wingbeat of a national media calling for the sport's swansong.

This is the central conundrum prompting certain horsemen's groups to advocate for HISA to wield such discretionary powers–something the groups did during the first round of the rule-making process, submitting comments calling for the HISA Authority to be given “residual power to suspend accreditation and suspend racing in case of an unusual cluster of fatalities or other safety emergency.”

They added back then that “unambiguous language is necessary to provide that the Authority and its Safety Committee can actively monitor accreditation requirements during live racing, suspend accreditation immediately in order to ensure the safety of horse and rider, and suspend racing until corrective measures are undertaken.”

Those initial proposals were submitted at the start of 2022. According to Morris, the same groups are in the process of resubmitting similar commentary in the latest window to tweak HISA's rule. And HISA, it appears, is listening.

According to Minger, HISA's current rules bar them from prohibiting “Covered Horseraces at a Racetrack” without an accreditation suspension or a finding of a racetrack safety violation.

However, “for circumstances where that is not the case, HISA is closely examining and considering a new safety rule traditionally utilized by State Racing Commissions to summarily suspend Covered Horseraces at a Racetrack when circumstances present an immediate danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Covered Persons, Covered Horses, and Riders, or are not in the best interests of racing,” wrote Minger.

A formal process to remove a track's accreditation, however, still appears to leave a window open for live racing to continue–as in Texas, where the tracks there are not HISA accredited but continue to operate without the ability to export their simulcasting signal out of state.

Uniquely for Texas, the lack of an exported simulcasting signal has not dramatically affected the state's purse fund, buttressed as it is with monies from a sales tax on equine products. Purses in many other states, however, are funded heavily through wagering.

Without the ability to export a signal, the hypothetical question becomes: How long could a track operate without these monies coming in?

Specific Criteria

The CHRB rule giving it emergency discretion to suspend a track's license is prescriptive about the necessary steps the commission must take to execute that power.

The board must give track management at least 24 hours' notice of the hearing on the petition to suspend the license, which can be filed by the executive director or by the equine medical director, for example. The board also has five days following the petition's filing to make a decision on the suspension or license restriction order, among other requirements.

What's missing, however, is a clear set of detailed criteria delineating what set of circumstances warrant the CHRB's petition to be filed in the first place, and that's a big problem, said Chaney.

“From a regulatory standpoint, pressure and notoriety alone should not be the criteria,” warned Chaney.

Which leads to perhaps the thorniest aspect of the proposed rule change–what are the agreed-upon parameters so this regulatory trip wire isn't used capriciously?

The term multifactorial is routinely bandied around to explain fatal musculoskeletal injuries.

In a cluster of deaths, is there commonality in the way the horses were conditioned and medicated, for example? Are there glaring holes in the pre-race veterinary checks? Is the out-of-competition testing program rigorous enough? Has the racing office unduly pressured trainers to enter? Is the track surface at fault? What about their breeding, and the way they were raised?

This Iliad-like search for answers makes transparency of a baseline set of information vital in the quest to identify preventable fatalities, said Chaney.

“But since all reporting is not equal, it's hard to have an open and honest conversation about that,” he added.

Indeed, in recent weeks Churchill Downs has faced criticism over its decision not to publicly share equine fatality data through the Equine Injury Database. And it's unclear when HISA–which is mandated to publicly share this data uniformly–will step up to the task.

“HISA's accreditation team has been working with tracks to help them meet their internal review and reporting obligations. We're also in the process of developing internal systems so that reliable catastrophic injury data can be aggregated and made available to the public on an ongoing basis. Until such time as reporting and tracking systems are in place nationwide, The Jockey Club's Equine Injury Database continues to be the most reliable source for the type of information you requested,” wrote Minger.

But this particular data-set is only one part of the industry's current black-hole riddled nebula of unreported and hidden information. The sooner the industry at large begins sharing relevant data in a timely manner–everything from detailed vet's list info to stewards' reports–the better, said Chaney.

“Regression to the mean is just not good enough,” he said. “When it comes to safety, every track, every regulatory authority, has to do everything they can.”

Cautionary Tales

Attorney Drew Cuoto has long been critical of tracks unilaterally suspending individuals from their facilities, describing instances where he believes the horsemen have not been afforded the necessary due process rights of hearing and appeal.

Couto, it should be noted, has represented Jerry Hollendorfer in ongoing litigation stemming from The Stronach Group's 2019 decision to bar the trainer from the company's facilities.

And so perhaps surprisingly, Couto, one of the founding members of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, agrees with the fundamental premise that HISA is given these additional discretionary powers.

But before actually wielding that cudgel, the Authority should ensure that it has taken reasonable measures to get to the bottom of the problem, he said, mirroring Chaney's comments.

“Every situation is unique,” Couto said. “But in my many years of experience, in the event of these unusual clusters, typically there are issues related with the track itself.”

As such, Couto believes that such a scenario should immediately prompt HISA to bring in outside experts to evaluate the available information, like failure analysts and composite material science experts to evaluate track surface measurements.

Here it should be noted that one of the things HISA has done at Churchill Downs is bring in an equine forensics specialist to conduct an independent review of the necropsies.

This is especially needed at those facilities where track operators might not have the necessary training and experience to understand the complex set of factors behind fatality clusters, said Couto. He points out how–unlike many positions in racing like trainers and veterinarians–individuals filling certain racetrack operational roles aren't tested for proficiency through a formal licensing process.

Right now, “suspensions largely serve PR objectives over reasoned analysis,” he said. “And so, what I hope HISA can do is not take the current scientific consensus as gospel, but to see it as a starting point in the scientific process.”

As Morris sees it, however, HISA is uniquely placed to cut through the red-tape of competing interests to police the “triad” of American racing–the racetracks, the horseman and racing commissions–equally.

“In past situations, it can turn into a blame game between the racetrack, the horsemen and a state racing commission that feels it may or may not have the power or jurisdiction to step in,” said Morris.

“But HISA is an independent regulator,” he added. “That is something that was very, very appealing to our collective group.”

The post Proposed HISA Rule Change: Emergency Power to Suspend Live Racing? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HISA Hosting Media Roundtable at Belmont Park

On Thursday, Jun. 8, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) CEO Lisa Lazarus and Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit (HIWU) Executive Director Ben Mosier will host a media roundtable at Belmont Park to discuss the ongoing implementation of HISA's Racetrack Safety and Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) Programs. The G1 Belmont Stakes will be the first Triple Crown race run under HISA's ADMC Program, which took effect on May 22.

The round table discussion will take place in the Belmont Room located on the second floor of the clubhouse and kicks off at 1:00 p.m.
Saturday's G1 Belmont Stakes, set to be held Jun. 10, will be the first Triple Crown race run under HISA's ADMC Program, which took effect on May 22.

Those interested in attending are requested to RSVP to either HISA Director of Communications Mandy Minger or HIWU Director of Communications & Outreach Alexa Ravit via email prior to Jun. 8.

The post HISA Hosting Media Roundtable at Belmont Park appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights