National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association

Uncaptured Storm Named NHBPA Claiming Horse of the Year

Nine-time winner Uncaptured Storm (Uncaptured)–who changed hands five times last year, winning at least once for each owner–has been selected the 2023 National Claiming Horse of the Year by the National Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Association. The NHBPA presents the award annually to shine the spotlight on horses that are exceptional at their level of competition, with claiming horses comprising the largest segment of racing across America. Uncaptured Storm and his connections will be honored at the NHBPA annual conference to be held at Iowa's Prairie Meadows in July.

Uncaptured Storm, now four, is currently owned by Rick Burnsworth and Bush Racing Stable and trained by the Mid-Atlantic-based Anthony Farrior.

“He just brings his race with him wherever he goes,” Farrior said. “This award is terrific. It's hard to get stakes horses. But if you can claim a horse and still get a little publicity over it, that's great.”

Burnsworth, the president of Douglas Explosives, said, “He loves to win. Heart of gold. Temperament is incredible. Beautiful animal. I've played a lot of sports in my life, and he's what we call a winner.”

Uncaptured Storm won nine of 18 starts last year, with four seconds and a third while racing predominantly against older horses at Laurel Park, Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races and Timonium Race Track. All his wins and $208,726 of his $220,476 came in 2023. The nine victories tied for second-most in North America, as the gelding raced from $12,500 maiden-claiming up to $40,000 claiming to an entry-level allowance, back to $10,000 claiming and back up to $40,000.

Uncaptured Storm was claimed five times: for maiden-claiming $12,500 on Jan. 8, $10,000 on July 29, $20,000 on Sept. 8, $16,000 on Nov. 5 and $20,000 on Nov. 12. Each time he won at least once before being claimed again.

Farrior has had the gelding more than anyone, claiming Uncaptured Storm three times, including for himself at the beginning of the year. Farrior lost the horse via claim to trainer Mario Serey, Jr. and owner John Chamatsos twice, claiming him back both times for Burnsworth, who at the end of the year sold part-interest to Bush Racing Stable.

Burnsworth has dozens of horses in training, plus more on a farm he and Farrior bought near Charles Town in the lower Shenandoah Valley. He tied for seventh in victories in last year's North American owner standings with 80 wins out of 301 starts for purses exceeding $1.35 million, according to Equibase statistics. Burnsworth won another 18 races in 2023 in partnerships, including with fiancee Kristina Buyea.

Claiming accounts for about 70 % of his horse business, he said, but he does buy some young horses and he is also acquiring broodmares.

Burnsworth owned horses for several years when his toddler daughter, Kelsey, was diagnosed with leukemia. He got almost completely out of racing to concentrate on Kelsey's health, a battle the animal lover and aspiring photographer lost at age 18 in 2011 after twice seemingly beating the blood cancer.

Burnsworth said that he and Buyea, along with his former wife Jessica Burnsworth, began teaming with North Mar Church in Warren, Ohio, on an initiative called Kelsey's Angels, which assists families staying around the clock at hospitals to be with their critically ill children–an underserved need he saw first-hand.

A chance encounter with Farrior at Charles Town led to Burnsworth plunging back into racing in a big way in 2022.

“… Since Anthony and I hooked up two years ago, it's been a blast,” he said.

He added, “Kristina and I got blue silks with a white cross. These are God's creatures. He's just letting me borrow them, and I've got to treat it that way.”

The post Uncaptured Storm Named NHBPA Claiming Horse of the Year appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The Wait Begins: Fifth Circuit Hears HISA Constitutionality Appeal Arguments

A 2 1/2-year-old legal fight led by the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA) to try and overturn the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) based on alleged constitutional flaws got distilled into one hour of oral arguments on Wednesday in the case's second go-round before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.

As expected, lawyers for the two sides stuck to the finer points of constitutionality law, and there were only several passing references related to horse racing. The arguments centered on the non-delegation doctrine, which is a legal principle that holds that Congress cannot delegate the power to legislate to executive agencies or private entities.

The panel of three judges–the same trio that declared a previous version of HISA unconstitutional last November, leading to an amended version of HISA that became law in December–did not overtly tip their hands as to which arguments they might be favoring based on the questions they asked of the attorneys. Nor did the judges conclude the session by declaring any timetable for issuing their decision.

The National NHBPA, 12 of its affiliates, and a number of Texas-based racetrack entities, plus the state of Texas itself and its racing commission, are the plaintiffs/appellants.

The HISA Authority, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and officials from each organization are the defendants/appellees.

“Congress did not, with this meager amendment, fix the fatal non-delegation problems plaguing HISA,” said William Cole, an attorney for the state of Texas who was among those who argued for the appellants.

“Again, there's at least three areas where the lawmaking power is not sufficiently subordinated, because, as we've mentioned time and again, the Authority's rules govern unless they can shove a rule through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The upshot is that for years, it's likely going to be the case that the Authority's rules govern, not the FTC's,” Cole said.

Joseph Busa, an attorney for the FTC, argued that the appellees believe the Fifth Circuit already settled the outstanding non-delegation issues when the same panel identified the constitutional flaws that led to Congress's rewrite of HISA.

“What [the appellants] are presenting to you, is they are saying no private entity can wield this kind of power, regardless of how subordinate they are, regardless of the degree of supervision that the public agency has over them. That is squarely inconsistent with almost 100 years of Supreme Court precedent,” Busa said.

The panel of judges referenced the “voluminous” number of pre-argument briefs filed by both sides in the case.

The HBPA had written in a pre-argument brief that it has problems with the Authority allegedly portraying itself as both a governmental body or a private organization “depending on which suits its interests on any individual argument,” according to an Aug. 25 court filing.

“Sometimes [the Authority] wants to be like a government entity, with the power to compel registration, collect mandatory fees, conduct searches, draw blood and urine samples, and impose sanctions with 'the force of federal law,'” the HBPA brief stated.

“Other times it wants to be a private business league, choosing its own board, running its own corporate affairs, and exempt from the Appointments and Appropriations clauses, the Freedom of Information Act, etc…” the brief continued.

This purported dual nature of the Authority, the HBPA alleged, “exposes the overall flaw” by which the 2022 rewrite of the HISA law should be struck down.

“Nothing could be more unfair or inequitable than to have a regulator with all the powers of government but exempt from all the democratic accountability and safeguards for liberty imposed on government,” the HBPA's filing stated.

The Authority defendants had asserted to the Fifth Circuit in their own pre-argument brief filed Aug. 4 that the HBPA's “feeble attempts” to contrast HISA with other statutes upheld against private non-delegation challenges rest on supposed differences that are either factually inaccurate or constitutionally irrelevant.

The Authority's brief put it this way: “Congress, the Executive, and all three federal courts that have considered the amended Act have reached the same conclusion: HISA is now constitutional. As every court to consider Congress's amendment has held, HISA no longer violates the private-nondelegation doctrine because the Authority is now subordinate to the FTC,” the filing stated.

The first time the HBPA plaintiffs attempted to challenge the original 2020 version of the HISA statute in federal court, on Mar. 15, 2021, the suit was dismissed, on March 31, 2022.

The HBPA plaintiffs then appealed, leading to the above-referenced Fifth Circuit Court reversal on Nov. 18, 2022, that remanded the case back to the lower court. In the interim, an amended version of HISA got passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Joe Biden on Dec. 29, 2022.

On May 4, 2023, the lower court deemed that the new version of HISA was constitutional because the rewrite of the law fixed the problems the Fifth Circuit had identified.

The HBPA plaintiffs then swiftly filed another appeal back to the Fifth Circuit, which led to an “expedited” scheduling of the Oct. 4 oral arguments.

The three judges on this Fifth Circuit panel are Stuart Kyle Duncan and Kurt D. Engelhardt (both nominated to their positions by President Donald Trump in 2018) and Carolyn Dineen King (who was nominated by President Jimmy Carter in 1979).

The post The Wait Begins: Fifth Circuit Hears HISA Constitutionality Appeal Arguments appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Vets: HISA Puts Them at ‘Greater Risk than Other Covered Persons’

The North American Association of Racetrack Veterinarians (NAARV) is arguing for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) on constitutional grounds because the law allegedly “places the racetrack veterinarians at a greater risk than other covered persons” from a due process standpoint.

Chief among the assertions made by the NAARV in a 51-page “friend of the court” brief filed July 14 are that “initial findings of wrongdoing by a member of NAARV, pursuant to HISA, result in a report to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and, therefore, a federal violation. A federal violation would inevitably result in the loss of not only the NAARV member's track license, but also the loss of the member's professional license to practice veterinarian medicine.”

In addition, the NAARV alleged that HISA creates a “financial barrier to due process review.”

That's because, according to the NAARV's filing, the ultimate authority, the FTC, isn't obligated to accept any covered person's request for review of a HISA ruling against them.

And if such a request for review is denied, that covered person's only right to appeal is to bring the matter all the way to a United States Court of Appeals, the NAARV stated. There are only 12 such courts in the country, divided regionally.

“Logistically, this is more challenging,” the NAARV filing stated. “Take, for example, a covered person who has an alleged violation in Texas. He or she must now pursue an appeal before the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana.

“A person who has allegedly committed a medication violation in Puerto Rico, if he or she decide to appeal, must pursue that appeal before the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston,” the brief continued.

Beyond potential travel burdens, the NAARV pointed out, bringing any legal action to that level of the federal court system isn't cheap.

“The estimated legal cost for a trip to the U.S. Court of Appeals is in excess of $25,000,” the NAARV stated.

“It creates a cost or premium for substantive due process rights that is unobtainable for most NAARV members and thus, results in a denial of their due process rights,” the NAARV stated.

At a different point in the filing, the NAARV explained that veterinarians accused of wrongdoing would no longer be “in a position to 'take the deal' on a minimum violation but instead forced to defend their position to maintain their license and their livelihood.”

The NAARV continued: “Prior to the implementation of HISA, NAARV members were able to negotiate a state violation without necessarily risking their general veterinary license. Under HISA, they are forced to do so in a system [that] deprives them of both substantive and procedural due process.”

The NAARV's assertions were made in support of the appeal led by the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA) and 12 of its affiliates.

The defendants in the underlying case, which has lingered in the federal court system for 28 months, are personnel from the FTC and the HISA Authority.

The HISA Authority and FTC have an Aug. 4 deadline to file their own briefs with the Fifth Circuit Court.

Oral arguments in the case are tentatively scheduled for the first week in October.

The post Vets: HISA Puts Them at ‘Greater Risk than Other Covered Persons’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Texas Judge Says No to ADMC Injunction

The Texas judge handling the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA) constitutionality lawsuit that is trying to halt the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) on Wednesday refused to grant an injunction that would delay the May 22 implementation of the Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) program.

In issuing his order, United States District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas (Lubbock Division) pointed out that it is the second time in two weeks that he has informed the plaintiffs in a court order that they have not established a likelihood of success on the merits of their case.

The judge also stated in the May 17 order that the horsemen “misunderstand” the legal standards that apply to the granting of an injunction in this particular instance.

“The Court denies the motion for an injunction pending appeal,” Hendrix wrote. “As detailed in its 55-page Memorandum Opinion and Order [issued May 4], the plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on the merits. And even if their proposed standard applied, they have not made a substantial case on the merits given the congressional amendment in response to the Fifth Circuit's opinion…

“Because the plaintiffs have not established a right to an injunction pending appeal under either the correct standard or their preferred standard, the Court denies the motion,” Hendrix wrote.

“The plaintiffs misunderstand the correct standard for a district court considering a motion for injunction pending appeal,” Hendrix continued, adding at a later point, “The 'substantial case on the merits' standard does not apply to injunctions pending appeal.”

The planned appeal to the Fifth Circuit is the latest wrinkle in a lawsuit that has lingered in the courts for over two years.

On Mar. 15, 2021, the NHBPA and 12 of its affiliates sued personnel from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the HISA Authority, seeking to keep HISA from being implemented. Judge Hendrix dismissed that suit on Mar. 31, 2022.

The NHBPA plaintiffs appealed, leading to a Fifth Circuit Court reversal on Nov. 18, 2022 that remanded the case back to Hendrix's court. In the interim, an amended version of HISA got signed into law on Dec. 29, 2022. That fix was designed to make HISA compliant with the constitutional defects the Fifth Circuit had identified.

On May 4, 2023, Hendrix validated the newer version of HISA as constitutional. One day later, the NHBPA informed him it is planning another appeal back to the Fifth Circuit, and it wanted the ADMC's rollout stopped while that process played out.

On May 8, Hendrix wrote that, “The Court previously denied injunctive relief, but the plaintiffs again request an injunction, arguing that they will be injured by the ADMC rule during the pendency of an expected appeal.”

Nine days later, on May 17, Hendrix handed down his decision denying that motion, noting that “the Court is not persuaded by these passing references to [cases that the NHBPA cited as precedents], especially when the plaintiffs have not identified any case in which a district court granted an injunction pending appeal after denying a motion for preliminary injunction (much less following a consolidated bench trial).”

The post Texas Judge Says No to ADMC Injunction appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post