It also turns a spotlight onto a world largely hidden from the public eye-one that industry leaders are generally loathe to discuss publicly, and in which just a few anonymous gamblers can have an outsized impact on the financial fitness or ill-health of the sport.

Last year, Del Mar continued a deal with a player identified as Elite 17 that saw them enjoy a noticeably more favorable rate of play than other high-volume players that wager through the CAW platform, Elite Turf Club, according to detailed wagering reports obtained by the TDN, background conversations with racing officials and figures within the CAW world, along with publicly available data.

At the enormous volumes CAW gamblers play, such deals can give individual players a significant financial edge.

The result was that this one player constituted nearly 47% of Elite Turf Club's total handle on Del Mar last year, according to the reports. Two years prior, Elite 17's play had constituted just over 36% of Elite Turf Club's total handle on Del Mar, according to publicly available California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) data.

At the same time, the amount of money another Elite Turf Club player (Elite 2) wagered on the track dropped off by over $32 million between 2021 and 2023, the reports show-from around $45 million in 2021 to around $13 million last year. In 2021, Elite 2's play came to just over 27% of Elite Turf Club's total handle on Del Mar. Last year, that number had dropped to around 12%.

According to multiple sources familiar with the situation, Elite 2 received a deal similar to Elite 17 in prior years at Del Mar, but not last year.

An individual familiar with the situation-who spoke as a “California racing source” on condition of anonymity-said that, prior to the track's 2023 summer meet, Elite 2 declined such a deal, which would have necessitated paying a “substantial seven-figure up-front payment.”

Del Mar Thoroughbred Club | Horsephotos

When asked if Elite 2 had changed their mind about the deal after the summer meet was underway, the source declined to answer, citing concerns about proprietary business information. “But you can't make an up-front payment after the meet has started,” the source added.

Such arrangements have served as a pre-payment on host fees to be split between the track and the purse account, sources say.

The deals that Del Mar has struck with Elite Turf Club players over the years, while hardly an anomaly among tracks nationally, nonetheless raises questions about the best approach to managing CAW play in a state where purse revenues are generated solely through betting. If purses fuel the sport, getting this equation right is an imperative.

Are deals between tracks and individual CAW players, therefore, a sustainable approach for growing the sport in California? Is CAW play now so vital to the economics of horse racing that every step must be taken to maximize their business? Or should California's tracks be much more focused on incentivizing play from the average punters who generally contribute the biggest slice to purses, rather than pandering to the whales of the betting seas?

While it's difficult to know exactly how such deals might have impacted Del Mar's purse account revenues, the bare numbers illustrate a track facing tough economic headwinds, with serious implications for the horsemen and women in the state.

Purses last fall at Del Mar were reduced by over 10% due to a purse account overpayment reportedly to the tune of $2.1 million. All-source handle at the track's flagship summer meet declined nearly 11% from 2022 to 2023, according to the DRF. Wagering through Elite Turf Club on the track's product has declined from around $167 million in 2021 to around $113 million last year, according to the CHRB.

“As a track with no subsidies from alternative forms of gaming that depends exclusively on handle for purse generation, promoting handle from all segments of the betting market is very important to us. On an annual basis we sit down with the [Thoroughbred Owners of California] TOC to both establish purse levels and to discuss how we best promote wagering on our simulcast signal,” wrote Del Mar Thoroughbred Club president, Josh Rubinstein, in response to a series of questions.

Before the start of each meet in California, the tracks present the TOC with a list of individual host fees charged to each location that receives its simulcast signal. For that track's meet to proceed, the TOC must first sign this document.

“We are proud of our racing product, which has been well-received for the last several years, and confident that our host fees are fair and competitive with other major race tracks. We will continue to work with our partners to balance pricing considerations with the overall demands of the wagering markets,” Rubinstein added.

How takeout is divided from CAW play

BACKGROUND ON RATES AND REBATES
The debate around CAW players typically surrounds the major edge they wield over regular gamblers thanks to their use of sophisticated wagering technologies and the attractive rates and rebates offered to them-inducements not available to the average punter.

When “rates” are mentioned, what is meant are “host fees.” This is a charge wagering outlets pay to track operators for the contractual right to import a simulcast signal. A wagering outlet could be another racetrack, an ADW platform (like FanDuel), or a CAW platform (like Elite Turf Club).

Experts say that CAW host fees for the premium tracks typically vary between 6% and 8%. After breeders' premiums and other minor deductions have been removed, host fees are roughly split 50/50 between the track and the purse account in California.

The entities that pay the lowest host fee, therefore-like CAW players-contribute the lowest per-dollar amount to purses. At the same time, proponents of CAW argue how these inducements are warranted due to the vast amounts these players inject into the betting pools.

The amount CAW players are “rebated” can be broadly calculated with this simple equation:

Rebate = Takeout minus host fee (plus any other associated minor fees). The smaller the host fee and the larger the takeout, then the bigger the rebate.

Let's use the 20% blended takeout rate among the pools. And let's say the host fee (plus other associated fees) that the CAW player pays comes to 7%.

The rebated discount for the CAW players, therefore, could be a maximum 13% on every dollar wagered.

Experts recently told the TDN that the most successful CAW players can consistently win at an average rate of around 92%. At that win rate, a 13% rebate (for example) would see the player enjoy a 5% profit margin.

According to wagering reports reviewed by the TDN, that win rate is an undercount. These reports show how Elite Turf Club players can win at an average rate in excess of 105%, even before their rebate from Elite is factored in. At this rate, the profit margin would be much better than many investment accounts.

It's also important to note how the numerical monikers given to Elite Turf Club players-a company majority owned by The Stronach Group (TSG)-don't relate to just one person.

These players employ a team of potentially dozens of people, including mathematical wizards who create sophisticated computer algorithms capable of analyzing the betting markets for exploitable weaknesses, as well as individuals who place the bets for them.

Insiders consulted for this story describe how these teams of experts can, over time, deduce through the betting markets and through other data sources if rival CAW players receive more favorable rates.

Given the money at stake, the competition can be cutthroat.

ELITE 17'S DEAL
As CAW play has grown exponentially in recent years, track operators have cut deals like that between Del Mar and Elite 17 to attract their business. And the amount these gamblers wager is often so huge, just one player can make up a significant portion of a track's overall handle.

In 2019, when the renowned gambler “Dr. Nick” stopped wagering on Australian racing reportedly due to increased taxes on bookmakers, his exit was projected to trigger a 6% drop in turnover on racing across the board.

Multiple sources for this story said that Elite 17 and Elite 2 were both well-known Australian gamblers.

Scott Daruty | Horsephotos

Scott Daruty, president of both TSG's Monarch Content Management and of the Elite Turf Club, declined to confirm or deny their identities, citing confidentiality agreements.

According to detailed reports obtained by the TDN, Elite 17 wagered more than $650 million on U.S. racing through Elite Turf Club alone last year. In 2021, Elite 17 wagered roughly $60 million on Del Mar's product, according to the CHRB. Last year, Elite 17 wagered some $53 million. Last summer at Del Mar, the amount Elite 17 wagered was roughly 10% of the total handle at Del Mar, using the DRF's all-source handle figures as a baseline.

These numbers don't account for Elite 17's potential play on horse racing through other methods such as fixed-odds providers and exchange options like Betfair in other countries, or on other sports. Some CAW players also have accounts with different CAW platforms like Velocity, owned by Churchill Downs, which enables wagering on tracks whose simulcast signals are managed by Churchill.

At the same time, multiple sources say individual deals are still fairly prevalent among smaller tracks struggling financially, but that they're now unusual among the nation's top-tier tracks.

According to wagering reports reviewed by the TDN, the New York Racing Association (NYRA) offered the same host fee to Elite Turf Club players at Saratoga last year, irrespective of the betting pool. This included Elite 17. The host fee NYRA charged was slightly lower than Del Mar charged the same CAW players (outside of Elite 17), these reports show.

“NYRA cannot responsibly comment or opine on information never provided to our organization,” wrote NYRA spokesperson, Pat McKenna, in response to questions about the wagering reports. The TDN provided to NYRA an overview of the figures in the reports but not the raw data. NYRA's data was independently verified for the TDN. NYRA is a minority owner in Elite Turf Club.

McKenna did, however, stress the steps the organization has taken to manage CAW play, including barring CAW play in the Pick 6, Late Pick 5, and Cross Country Pick 5 pools, and requiring CAW players to place win bets on its races no later than two minutes to post.

California has also taken similar steps to moderate CAW play.

Since Santa Anita's 2022 fall meet, the win pool has been closed to CAW players one-minute to post, or else they must also pay a surcharge of around 3.5% on top of their normal rate if they want to bet to the close of the win-pool. Last year, Del Mar followed suit. Both tracks have also reverted to the traditional Pick 6.

When it comes to Del Mar's deal with Elite 17, the agreement was incumbent upon the player making a substantial payment at the start of the meet, according to multiple sources. Once that up-front payment was made, Elite 17 paid a host fee almost half of that for other Elite Turf Club players, wagering reports show.

But multiple sources familiar with the situation explained how factoring in the up-front payment, Elite 17 paid a host fee on Del Mar's product last year around a percentage point or so lower than the other CAW players.

At the volume CAW gamblers play, just one percentage point difference in host fee can mean a significant edge for one CAW player over all others, along with possible residual effects on all other participants in the betting pools in terms of late odds movement.

Bill Nader | Horsephotos

TOC president and CEO Bill Nader explained that deals involving up-front payments incentivize the player to maximize the amount they wager on the track's product.

“For example, if the player bets over a certain threshold, the player benefits from a high-volume discount. If the player does not reach that wagering threshold, the effective rate would be higher than other CAW players,” wrote Nader.

But could the deal that Del Mar struck with Elite 17 have prompted other CAW players-and Elite 2 in particular-to have curbed their play at the track last year?

The California racing source said that other CAW players were offered similar terms to Elite 17 last year. However, it should be noted that the other CAW players that wager through Elite Turf Club on Del Mar didn't bet to nearly the same volume as Elite 17 last year, and that Elite 2 was the only Elite Turf Club player to wager in the region of Elite 17's handle in 2021.

The California racing source also noted how CAW play is closely aligned with overall handle on a track's product, and that declines in total handle would invariably lead to decreases in CAW play.

“It's hard for us to say with any certainty why player A or B may have reduced his or her volume of play,” the source said. “The best source for that is the player themself.”

The TDN reached out to a representative of the player believed to be Elite 2, who declined to discuss the situation.

Here, it should be noted that at least one Elite Turf Club player increased their play between 2021 and 2023. This was Elite 10, who wagered $4.9 million in 2021 and $6.7 million in 2023 on Del Mar's product.

The TDN does not have access to data showing individual CAW handle on Del Mar's product in 2022. That was the year the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) stopped making such data publicly available. Even so, California remains more transparent than other jurisdictions about what CAW data it makes publicly available.

Another wrinkle in this story is how Del Mar boasts an attractive wagering product with good field sizes and an impressive safety record. With that in mind, was the deal the right one to strike?

“With the benefit of hindsight, it has been the wrong deal for over 10 years and this is why we need a market correction,” wrote Nader, in response to a series of questions. “We represent the owners and purses are paid to owners, trainers, and jockeys, and there is room for improvement. This is what the TOC hired me to do.”

When asked why the TOC approved the deal last year, Nader wrote how 2023 “was my first full year with the TOC and we needed time to work with our Board members and others, notably the tracks, to voice our reservations and allow for a period of adjustment. This entire exercise has been a work in progress.”

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW?
The issue of shrinking purse revenues amid declining economic benchmarks couldn't be a more pressing issue in California right now, where the industry attempts to piece together a revised racing framework in the wake of Golden Gate's impending closure in June.

At the end of the day, therefore, those arguably most impacted by decisions around managing CAW play are the industry stakeholders attempting to eke out a living from the sport.

When asked for comment on the story, the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) wrote in a prepared statement how, “based on Del Mar's representations and the TOC's confirmation of how the purse account there has been managed, we can only say we're disturbed and confused. In January of 2021, at a CTT Board meeting, we attempted to question TOC leadership at the time about how purse levels were being funded, and were angrily rebuked by those in charge.”

At that point in time, Greg Avioli was TOC president.

“Since purses are the lifeblood of our sport, and are fueled by the public's interest and its confidence in the integrity of pari-mutuel betting, the apparent lack of transparency we're hearing about now has to be remedied immediately,” the CTT added.

Scott Chaney | courtesy of the CHRB

According to CHRB executive director, Scott Chaney, the agency is “keenly aware of the questions, importance and interest surrounding CAWs and plans to place the topic on our meeting agenda in the next month or so.”

Chaney added how “the concepts of purse accounts and structure are also vitally important to racing in California, therefore in order promote understanding and transparency, we are in the process of amending our race meet license application to include additional questions in this area.”

All of which leads to this question: Will Elite 17 be offered the same deal this year?

“No. Negotiations are ongoing across the entire customer sector,” wrote Nader.

“High-volume players will agree that two key deliverables to make their business models more attractive are access and liquidity to commingled pools,” added Nader. “Our racetrack partners should also understand the collective upside and if everyone can take a step back and look at this thing holistically, we can work it out.”

The post Computer Assisted Wagering: Anatomy Of A Deal appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Although the CHRB concluded the meeting–which featured testimony that was at times emotional, hopeful, angry, and even ominous–without taking any voting action on the situation, proponents behind ideas that would turn one of the NorCal fairs locations into a venue capable of hosting nearly year-round Thoroughbred racing had a decided edge in turnout and vocal support.

In part, that's because those NorCal-based supporters enjoyed a home-track advantage, because the Jan. 18 CHRB meeting was held at Cal Expo in Sacramento, the preferred location for a year-round venue as outlined in a presentation by the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF).

But the locale wasn't the only factor, as much of the back-and-forth debate also came across as a referendum about larger racing entities allegedly trying to trump smaller ones, whether or not 1/ST Racing and Gaming–which owns both Golden Gate and Santa Anita Park–will be good for the state in the long run, and whether or not the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) organization speaks for all the stakeholders in the state or just the higher-end stables based in SoCal.

Yet it was telling that no fewer than 26 industry stakeholders spoke before the board on this wide-ranging, controversial North/South topic during the public commentary period, and not a single one voiced support for an alternate plan proposed by TOC in conjunction with executives from Santa Anita Park and Del Mar Thoroughbred Club.

That TOC-backed concept would consolidate all commercial-track racing in the state at SoCal. The goal would be to maintain level purses there under a simulcast revenue “redirect” plan that would also try to accommodate displaced Golden Gate outfits by creating more opportunities for lower-level horses to race at Los Alamitos Race Course, dropping the “claiming floors” at both Santa Anita and Del Mar, and establishing “relocation allowances” for stables that had to pack up and move.

The TOC's takeaway message was that even though it is in support of any “feasible and viable” plan to keep year-round racing afloat in NorCal, a danger exists in the form of increasing economic pressures in the South that, in turn, could contribute to millions of dollars in purse overpayments at Santa Anita and Del Mar that would likely erode the overall California product.

“With the closing of Golden Gate, can we continue to support two full-time circuits? This is a fair question,” said Bill Nader, the TOC's president and chief executive officer.

“We are running out of time,” Nader continued. “If there is agreement on one point, I think it would be that the latest possible decision on the allocation of 2024-25 race dates would be at the CHRB meeting in March. This would help re-establish stability and certainty for the many who are looking for answers.”

Nader's tone was largely somber and straightforward as he discussed the TOC's rationale with executives from 1/ST Racing and Del Mar presenting alongside. But at times his comments were met with derision and catcalls from opponents, who greatly outnumbered the supporters of the TOC's plan.

Many of those same folks also cheered and applauded any mentions of trying to save year-round NorCal racing.

At one point, CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, asked audience members to respect decorum so that the outbursts wouldn't bog down the meeting. But his request to “stop the clapping and the booing” went largely unheeded.

Larry Swartzlander, the executive director for CARF, detailed his organization's work-in-progress plan to install a seven-furlong track inside the current main mile oval at Cal Expo, which for years has largely hosted Standardbred racing outside of the short season that the Thoroughbred fair races in Sacramento.

Swartzlander said Cal Expo would likely race 103 Thoroughbred dates in the future (on the outer oval), with cards scheduled roughly twice weekly when the other NorCal fairs weren't in season.

“We are looking at funding from horsemen, CARF, and potential grants,” Swartzlander said, admitting that his plan is just in its initial stages because horsemen in California have only known since July about 1/ST Racing's plan to close Golden Gate.

As a result, Swartzlander was light on specifics such as firm costs and a timeline.

Swartzlander said next up is a Jan. 26 meeting with the Cal Expo board of directors seeking conceptual approval.

“If the board does decline to approve racing at Cal Expo, we will move to Pleasanton,” as a potential year-round NorCal racing home, Swartzlander said. “The Pleasanton board is very strongly in support of racing, and if I have to make one commitment to you, Pleasanton will race.”

When CHRB executive director Scott Chaney pressed Swartzlander for cost details, Swartzlander gave an estimate for state-owned Cal Expo's overhaul in the $1- to 1.5-million range.

Chaney expressed surprise at such a low figure.

“I'm not going to lie. I think you're very low,” Chaney said.

“One of the things that concerns all of us is uncertainty right now,” Chaney said. “We're, I'm sure, bleeding horses every day because there's no clear plan. We don't know what we're doing in the future [and] I am concerned about timeline and cost at Cal Expo. I just think it's unrealistic. I know it's unrealistic, to be honest.”

Commissioner Wendy Mitchell said she appreciated CARF's efforts at coming up with a plan, but also expressed doubts.

“I don't see how any of this lines up,” Mitchell said. “And I guess my concern from a regulatory or from the industry perspective is I don't want to create false expectations for people that are really unattainable…. I don't mean to be negative or a doubter, but I'm trying to be realistic and pragmatic about what the industry is facing.”

Commissioner Damascus Castellanos said that the time crunch and uncertainty was caused by 1/ST Racing, not CARF.

“The industry was kind of slow to get going on this whole thing,” Castellanos said. “We would be so further along if [1/ST Racing] came to us with proper notice [and] the groups in this room today probably could have gotten together and been done with this plan.”

Ian McLean, an owner and breeder, said during the public commentary session that the CHRB itself is partly to blame.

“If I'm not mistaken, this board works for us. We don't work for you,” McLean said. “The one thing that I've asked this board for years and years is to give us more attention in NorCal. Give us more time. Make us more important. Listen to what we have to say, and make us feel like we matter. And I don't think that's been done.”

McLean said the CHRB's response to CARF's proposal is too focused on negativity and “looking for the holes” in the plan.

“And I agree that you should look for the holes,” McLean continued. “But you should also look for 'How could we patch those holes?'”

Jamey Thomas, a third-generation NorCal trainer, advocated for the CHRB taking a slower approach.

“CARF needs time to get all this situated and done,” Thomas said. “It's kind of been a rush job. They're rushing us, forcing us, to get this stuff done faster than it can be done. Again, if they had let us know a year ago, by now everything could have been in place, we would have had a place to run. And we will have a place to run. The thing is, we just need the time.”

Tom Bachman, who said he's been breeding and selling Thoroughbreds in California for 40 years, underscored that the state's bloodstock industry works on a different timeline.

“My concern as a breeder is that the decisions I make today, the results are three or four years away when I've got to sell,” said Bachman. “So it's very difficult to have faith that three or four years from now there's sustainable racing in California. So my breeding now has moved to Kentucky.”

Johnny Taboada, who was a TOC director until last Sunday, when he was one of three directors to resign in protest over the TOC's proposed statewide consolidation, told the CHRB that the NorCal fairs are in jeopardy without a year-round track in the region.

“If you rush into the decision without giving the chance for the NorCal [entities to come up with an plan for a] circuit, you're going to not only put people out of work, you're going to be closing the fairs as well,” Taboada said. “If we don't have the dates assigned to the North and therefore the money goes to the South, that will be the end of not only NorCal racing, but also the fairs.”

CHRB chairman Ferraro wrapped up the session by saying that this is only the first major discussion on an enormously important topic.

“We needed your information. We need your input,” Ferraro said. “I'm telling you, it's not easy sitting in this chair looking at this situation. It is almost a no-win situation for this board. We're going to do the best we can to do right by everybody. But obviously, we have no decision-making [Thursday], so we will have to end this meeting without a decision, and we'll see what happens over the next couple of months.”

The post Vocal Two-Circuit Supporters in Cali Come Out Firing in First of Many Expected North/South Skirmishes appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

TDN's Dan Ross had reported Dec. 9 that Golden Gate is overpaid to the horsemen's account by some $3.1 million as the Northern California track is set to start what is expected to be the final race meet there (Dec. 26-June 9). 1/ST Racing disclosed back in July that it would be ceasing racing at the lone remaining non-fairs track in that region of the state.

In that same article last week, Bill Nader, the president and chief executive officer of Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), confirmed that Santa Anita's overnight purses are also scheduled to be lowered for the winter/spring meet that starts Dec. 26, with $2 million sliced from the track's stakes schedule.

Gonzales particularly took umbrage on Dec. 14 with the Golden Gate reduction, noting that he has received “a lot of phone calls” about “this drastic purse cut here in Northern California that I would describe as being very unexpected.”

“And that's really thrown a lot of the Northern California horsemen, [and] us commissioners, off guard,” Gonzales continued. “I had thought that there was a deal that [1/ST Racing had] put on the table, which was to extend racing [instead of closing at the end of 2023]. Then it appears as if this unexpected development, which is not a normal meet, but rather a [condition book that includes a] very drastic cut to the Northern California horsemen.”

Beyond the cuts themselves, Gonzales said he had issues with how horsemen found out about them.

“Process is everything,” Gonzales said. “And I just think that blatant disregard in terms of how it was communicated, if it wasn't for what appears to be a couple of news stories that were written, Northern California horsemen were just notified by the condition book. That's not how you do business. And I just feel that we have to remain vigilant when management comes before us, because I believe they are doing things that are detrimental to California racing.

“We have Arizona that's getting ready to reopen with higher purses,” Gonzales said, referring to Turf Paradise, which is slated to start racing Jan. 29 after a nine-month closure, and appears to be luring California stables out of state. “Meanwhile, we're cutting them. I just don't think that there's anybody paying very close attention about how we make sure we're retaining quality horses and quality horsemen.

“So I am concerned to say the least, and I cannot wait until we have representatives of that particular racetrack here before us, because I have a lot of questions for them,” Gonzales said.

Reached via phone after the CHRB meeting, Craig Fravel, the chief executive officer at 1/ST Racing, declined an opportunity to respond to Gonzales's comments.

But Fravel did want to make a statement about the Golden Gate purse cuts.

“I think it's just useful to point out that for the last year and a half, we have been in discussions with the TOC relating to reducing purses so that the actual purse liability is met from purses generated,” Fravel told TDN. “And they have been resistant to those purse cuts, so we have advanced sums well in advance of the actual purse liability to horsemen in Northern California. And I don't think it's unreasonable at all for us to try to recuperate them in accordance with what the actual statutory obligations are.”

At the CHRB meeting, when Gonzales asked the board's executive director, Scott Chaney, what power the board had to intervene, Chaney said the commission has few options beyond its obvious cudgel of compliance, which is control over the track's licensure.

“It's an interesting question. The purse structure is something that is decided on between the TOC owners' group [and] the particular racetrack,” Chaney said, explaining that purse agreements are basically predictions about handle revenue that can sometimes result in under- or over-payments.

When they occur, usually the tracks and horsemen agree to rectify the imbalance one way or another at the next scheduled race meet for that particular venue.

“So an overpayment or underpayment can be corrected over time,” Chaney said. But in this instance, because of the wrinkle with 1/ST Racing slated to shutter Golden Gate, “there's not another meet that Golden Gate's going to have to correct it. So I think in many ways this in uncharted territory,” he added.

“When Hollywood Park closed [10 years ago this month] it was a little bit different,” Chaney explained. Even though Hollywood was also shutting down after having overpaid the purse account, “Los Alamitos Race Course assumed a large part of that overpayment in exchange to take some of their racing dates. We don't have that same situation in Northern California. So needless to say, it's pretty difficult.”

Chaney added that “with respect to the CHRB's role, it's somewhat limited.”

Chaney pointed out that “TOC obviously has to develop their position. I think it's fair to say Northern California TOC members and Southern California TOC members probably view the purse cut differently. And so my understanding, at least, is that the TOC is not opposing the purse cut. So I think there's an internal dispute within the horsemen's group.

“The second piece is [that] part of the race meet agreement allows the tracks unilaterally to cut purses up to 25%. Beyond that, obviously there would have to be negotiation,” Chaney said.

“So I don't see a statutory, regulatory or legal role in settling this dispute,” Chaney said. “I would definitely say can use our 'influence' [with] both race-date allocation and licensure-granting. They are levers that the CHRB always has to kind of exact more fairness, if you will.”

During the meeting's public commentary section, the Pleasanton, California-based horse owner and breeder George Schmitt went into detail about the alleged dissension within TOC that Chaney had alluded to.

“The only group that are in the [TOC] bylaws that can negotiate for Northern California is [the TOC's] Northern California racing commission,” Schmitt said. “That committee voted unanimously not to accept the 25% reduction in purses. They were overruled by the management of the TOC.

“It is likely that there will be lawsuits filed unless they fix the problems that they have,” Schmitt continued. “A number of us in the north, at this point in time, believe that to take care of horse racing in the north, we need to establish a Northern California owners' organization [so as not to be] simply overridden by people in Southern California who could care less about what happens in the north.”

The post CHRB Vice-Chair: 1/ST Racing ‘Doing Things That Are Detrimental to California Racing’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Rule 1878 states in part that “a horse shall not be permitted to workout (unless) the horse has been examined by the trainer's attending veterinarian during the 72 hours immediately preceding the workout for the express purpose of evaluating the horse's fitness to work out.” Furthermore, “The evaluation shall be recorded in the Veterinarian Report in accordance with section 1842.”

Daily workout reports and veterinary confidentials are located in two separate databases. Currently, CHRB personnel must go through those databases manually to determine whether a horse had been examined prior to exercising. An integrated system via InCompass will streamline that process and ensure greater compliance with Rule 1878.

“The CHRB is fully committed to constantly improving animal welfare, which is the point of Rule 1878,” said CHRB Executive Director Scott Chaney. “Like many of our regulations, this particular one is trailblazing. As we endeavor to perfect the process, we encourage other regulatory bodies to consider adopting similar protections.”

The post CHRB Teams Up with The Jockey Club’s InCompass Solutions to Solve California Workout Issue appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Back on July 16, 1/ST Racing, which owns both Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields, announced that Golden Gate would cease racing at the end of 2023. That timetable was later revamped by 1/ST Racing, which earlier this month announced that it would keep NorCal's last remaining commercial track open through mid-June of 2024 in an effort to provide stability for a circuit that will soon have to rely on extended fairs racing to remain viable.

Prior to the CHRB's 7-0 vote on Sept. 21 to approve 2024 dates for the work-in-progress circuit, Scott Chaney, the board's executive director, explained that even though a measure of short-term certainty would be achieved, at some near-future point everyone involved in the process would have to deal with the “elephant in the room” that will arrive in the form of Golden Gate not opening on Sept. 11, 2024, for its traditional autumn meet.

Chaney outlined two likely post-Golden Gate scenarios: That entities wanting to conduct new race meets will “find a home for dates and make more of a year-round racing calendar,” or the NorCal circuit will morph into “a really great fair season each summer, and [then try] to take care of those horses that might not have a place to run in Southern California” while NorCal racing goes dark, perhaps for months at a time.

“So I think that's what's facing the industry going forward,” Chaney said. “We've kind of kicked the can down the road a little bit, and I really appreciate [the six-month Golden Gate extension]. But the hard decisions, we've really just forestalled them for a few more months.”

Chaney also underscored that any entity wishing to fill the NorCal dates void would be advised to get its act together sooner rather than later, “because we have humans and horses that we have to think about come the end of fair racing next year.”

Chaney read into the record the schedule the commissioners approved. At least for right now, it will look like this for 2023-24:

“Golden Gate Fields from late December through June; followed by the normal four weeks of Alameda County Fair; followed by the normal three weeks at Cal Expo; followed by Santa Rosa, who is requesting and is interested in an additional third week, and then followed by Ferndale, who also is interested in a third week,” Chaney said.

“So that takes us through Sept. 10,” Chaney said. “The one remaining fair would be Fresno, and they are requesting the first two weeks of October. So that leaves the last few weeks of September, and then mid-October through December, unallocated.”

Larry Swartzlander, the executive director of California Authority of Racing Fairs, told the board prior to the vote that, “We would like to see the dates awarded for the fall period, but at this point we don't have a definite location.”

CHRB vice chair Oscar Gonzales tried to strike a positive tone by pointing out that while not perfect, the NorCal situation is not as bleak as it looked two months ago when the bombshell Golden Gate news first dropped.

“We definitely want to reassure Northern California horsemen, breeders and owners in particular, that racing will continue; that this board is going to do everything that we can,” Gonzales said, alluding to the work that still needs to be done.

Bill Nader, the president and chief executive officer of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), pledged his organization's support for NorCal, and he said the TOC recognized the important role the circuit plays in the state's overall racing.

But Nader did express concern about a third week of racing at Ferndale, which he said averaged only 5.12 starters per race over two weeks this summer.

“So to stretch it to three weeks, from the TOC point of view…I just think it might be one step too far,” Nader said, adding that keeping the Ferndale meet at two weeks, at least for now, “would make better sense.”

Swartzlander defended Ferndale based on its small-track aesthetics trumping the low number of starters.

“When you talk about the number of horses, last year we had 5.02, which was less than we had this year,” Swartzlander said. “Every year Ferndale is basically in that category. You know, I can't applaud it or say negatively against it. It is what it is. And if you've been up there–great fans; have a good time–it's just a good atmosphere. And I believe with the third week, and also you change the playing field in Northern California, [we] expect to have better support.”

Gonzales pointed out that by allocating dates on Thursday, the CHRB wasn't outright approving a three-week license for Ferndale. That decision to grant actual licensure will happen closer to the race meet's start, which is standard procedure for the CHRB. Gonzales said if veterinarians and other CHRB staffers at that time present evidence that three weeks at Ferndale would be too much of a strain or a stress on horses, the board will address the issue.

The post CHRB Sets ’24 NorCal Schedule, but GGF’s Closure Remains ‘Elephant in the Room’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

A total of 26 died last year as a result of musculoskeletal injuries that occurred while racing or training, compared with 39 the previous year. For context, approximately 30,000 race starts and far in excess of 100,000 workouts occur each year from 8,000 to 10,000 horses at CHRB regulated facilities.

“That's still too many fatalities, but it shows that all of the new regulations, policies and procedures that that we've introduced in cooperation with the industry have had a significant effect,” said CHRB Chairman Greg Ferraro. “Our efforts are focused primarily on preventable injuries, and that's what the numbers reflect. I don't know of any racing jurisdiction in the country that even comes close to matching this effort or result.”

In the interest of full transparency, the CHRB also tracks fatalities caused by any non-exercise-related catastrophic injury. The most common cause of death in this other group is gastro-intestinal diseases, such as colic, colitis, and enteritis, followed by respiratory disease. Unfortunately, the number of “other” deaths increased last year, and those 43 deaths, coupled with the 26 due to musculoskeletal injuries, brought the total to 69, or three more than the 66 from the previous year.

“I've considered several times the idea of not counting other deaths, the type that occur among horse populations anywhere in the world, including the popular riding stables and in the wild, but I've always decided that full transparency is the best way to go,” said CHRB Executive Director Scott Chaney.

Those 43 other deaths occurred despite care and treatment by on-site veterinarians and specialized equipment located in stable areas.

“Six of those horses were transported to the veterinary hospital at the University of California, Davis, as well as other local referral hospitals, where experts did their best to save them,” said Dr. Jeff Blea, the CHRB equine medical director. “Illnesses such as severe colic, advanced neurologic cases, and obscure medical conditions, sometimes just are not treatable, as animal and horse owners throughout the world know from personal experience.”

For further context, equine fatalities at CHRB-regulated facilities have declined by 54 percent since 2019, including the “other” category.

The post CHRB Reports Safety Measures Continue To Protect Horses appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The last two dates that Santa Anita had raced, Apr. 8 and 9, a total of five turf races had to be swapped from the “firm” grass course to the “fast” main dirt track because of slippage problems on the far turn.

That Apr. 8 card was the meet's premier race date, featuring the GI Santa Anita Derby and its undercard stakes. But when Midnight Jostar (Midnight Lute) lost his footing and fell at the top of the stretch, unseating jockey Kent Desormeaux, one remaining late-card Grade III stakes and two allowance races got transferred to the main track.

The trouble spot was then aerated overnight and jockeys walked the course with track management on Sunday, Apr. 9. They rode four races over the “firm” course, but continued complaints slipping and bobbling necessitated the removal of two later races from the course.

Scott Chaney, the CHRB's executive director, said Apr. 20 both the fallen horse and jockey ended up being “perfectly fine” and that the removal of turf racing was “completely the right call” by track management.

But Chaney did add that from a standpoint of inconvenience, “it certainly wasn't a good look for [Santa Anita] and it was bad for the wagering public.” He termed the mid-card need to remove races from the turf on a cloudless, non-raining day to be “less than ideal, and frankly Santa Anita lost a fair amount of money because of it.”

Chaney continued: “The current explanation is that it was wet, therefore slippery, [and] that water was not draining well enough through the turf course. My understanding is that that's partly because they've changed the composition because of the inordinate amount of rain. So it can take more rain, but it doesn't drain quite as well.

“There was no racing this week. We've been getting daily reports from our safety stewards on the grounds there about the measures they've taken in terms of aeration and [the addition] a substance that promotes drainage on the turf course,” Chaney said. “I know they worked three horses [Wednesday] morning [and everybody] seemed happy with how that was supposed to go. ”

CHRB equine medical director Jeff Blea concurred with Chaney.

“It's frustrating for those owners. It's frustrating for the betting public, and those trainers as well. I heard a lot of those frustrations,” Blea said. “But, as Scott said, there were some issues with horses slipping on one area of the racetrack around that turn. The stewards decided, and I think they made a good decision, in the safety of the horses and riders, to take it off the turf.

“I know Santa Anita was affected paramountly with the loss of wagering,” Blea said. “[But] they've gone through, they've evaluated and looked at what the problem was [and concluded] that the turf was back to normal and safe.”

The post CHRB On Santa Anita Turf: ‘Back To Normal And Safe’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

In another first among the nation's racing jurisdictions, the CHRB also agrees to pay HISA's 2023 fee assessment. The total figure for the state is more than $6.7 million. However, after HISA's credits have been applied, the final amount that California owes HISA comes out to roughly $1.5 million, according to the voluntary agreement.

“The CHRB has been enforcing and complying with safety regulations that HISA introduced July 1, 2022. Under the new agreement, the CHRB will implement rules under the Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) Program, which are scheduled to go into effect March 27, 2023,” the CHRB's Friday statement read.

Under the voluntary agreement–shared by CHRB executive director Scott Chaney with TDN–the CHRB agrees to continue performing certain tasks for the HISA Authority and for HIWU, including the collection of equine samples, and the testing of these samples at the University of California, Davis's Kenneth L. Maddy Equine Analytical Laboratory.

In turn, U.C. Davis's “Maddy Lab” also becomes the first laboratory to officially sign onto HIWU's drug testing program.

Because state racing commissions and their respective industries already pay for many of HIWU's anti-doping and medication control program components, HISA is offering credits as subsidies to its annual fees.

According to California's voluntary agreement, the commission's total “state testing credit” will be $4.7 million. This includes some $1.2 million for sample collection and $3.5 million for laboratory costs such as race-day testing, research, and the analysis of samples from other states.

California also receives an additional out-of-competition testing credit estimated to be around $450,000 annually.

“If the costs for out-of-competition testing outside of Race Day pursuant to this Paragraph exceed $450,000 at the end of 2023, the Commission will receive an additional credit for 2024 in the amount of the excess costs,” the voluntary agreement reads.

“The CHRB is proud of our work and record in safety and animal welfare, and therefore we want to have a role in shaping policy going forward,” said Chaney in the statement issued Friday. “We have partnered and supported the national effort from the beginning and appreciate the dedication of the Authority and HIWU.”

The CHRB's statement adds: “The CHRB and representatives of the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, 1st Racing, the Thoroughbred Owners of California, and UC Davis have been advising HISA all along, promoting California's strict regulatory program, and partly for that reason the federal rules are similar to those in California, meaning participants in California horse racing will need to make fewer adjustments than some of their counterparts in other racing jurisdictions.”

The post California First to Sign Voluntary Agreement, Pay HISA 2023 Fees appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines the compounding of drugs as “the process of combining, mixing, or altering ingredients to create a medication tailored to the needs of an individual patient. Compounding includes the combining of two or more FDA-approved drugs.”

The tranquilizer acepromazine is a prime example of this process, routinely compounded into liquid form to be prescribed and used on fractious dogs and horses. Other commonly used compounded medications across America's backstretches include dantrolene, used on horses that tie-up, and naquasone, for swelling.

Compounded drugs are not FDA-approved, but they are widely used in veterinary medicine provided the compounding process is done according to federal and state guidelines–a dynamic the CHRB has mirrored as a practical regulatory approach for many years, despite the existence of a state statute that essentially forbids drug compounding on CHRB licensed premises.

CHRB's Rule 1867 (b) states that “the possession and/or use on the premises of a facility under the jurisdiction of the Board of any drug, substance or medication that has not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the United States.”

The California VMB interprets that rule categorically. Of the roughly 25 backstretch veterinarians currently working in Southern California, nearly all have accusations, are on probation or have record requests pending from the VMB in relation to potential Rule 1867 violations, according to the CHRB.

Last September, the CHRB issued an advisory to its relevant stakeholders stating that the agency's “longstanding interpretation” of rule 1867 “is that lawfully prescribed, compounded medications which are manufactured according to Federal and State guidelines do not violate this regulation.”

But CHRB equine medical director Jeff Blea said that the current Rule 1867 language “falls short of the intention of the rule.” It has been modified “to allow for quality standard care of racehorses by the use of compounded medications provided they are legally manufactured and prescribed in conjunction with a [veterinary client patient relationship].”

The proposed emergency rule making–one along a truncated timeline–appears geared to help shield veterinarians with pending cases by the VMB against them from a potential regulatory trap if they settle with the VMB and return to work under probation: should they then prescribe and administer compounded medications under the current Rule 1867 language, they could face stark professional consequences.

CHRB executive director Scott Chaney explained that the “sole purpose” of the proposed emergency rule making “is to clarify the language both for the vet' med' board but also for the practitioners.”

When asked if Rule 1867 (b)–adopted more than 20 years ago–should have been modified before to avoid the present professional threat that backstretch veterinarians currently face, Chaney pointed to how the CHRB has never cited a veterinarian for a Rule 1867 (b) violation, and that the board wasn't aware of the VMB filing accusations related to the same rule prior to 2020.

“Looking at it today, the easy answer is yes,” said Chaney. “But I think given it's our regulation and we were always purposeful and public about how we interpreted it, there was no reason.”

The proposed new rules modify Rule 1867 with provisions meaning that “possession or use of any compounded drug, substance, or medication, manufactured according to Federal and State laws and regulations, shall not be considered a prohibited veterinary practice” as long as no other human or animal drugs approved by the FDA to do the same job exist and are available, and that the drug is compounded by a California licensed veterinarian or California licensed pharmacy.

The proposed regulations do not differ substantially from any existing comparable federal regulations or statutes, according to the CHRB.

The CHRB has already noticed the proposed emergency regulations, giving interested parties a five-day public comment period. On Feb. 2, the board will submit them to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). That office then has 10 days to accept or deny the proposed rules.

If the OAL indeed adopts the proposed emergency regulations in this truncated manner, the CHRB has 180 days to formally adopt the rules though its typical rule-making process. If the OAL denies the proposed rules, the CHRB can still adopt them through that normal rule-making process, but they won't go into effect until formally finalized.

The VMB, said Chaney, was involved in the drafting of the proposed regulations.

“We sent them the language we were thinking about, they made some suggestions. We incorporated a few of them but not all,” explained Chaney. “I know they discussed at their last meeting actually commenting, when they had the opportunity, on our regulation.”

The TDN emailed the VMB a series of questions, including whether the agency endorsed the proposed rules, and whether it would urge the OAL to accept or deny it. The VMB has not responded as of publication.

This action is the latest in a regulatory standoff between the CHRB and the VMB, ongoing since the VMB took the unprecedented step of suspending the license of equine medical director Blea at the end of 2021, only to reinstate his license the following September after finding him guilty of only fairly minor record-keeping offenses.

The VMB has complaints currently open against a number of Southern California veterinarians citing them for various alleged offenses beyond Rule 1867 violations, including the alleged misuse of misbranded drugs and of record-keeping offenses.

“This is the only CHRB regulation that the vet' med' board was using in its accusations,” said Chaney, when asked if the CHRB was planning on issuing other similar proposed emergency regulations.

“There are other causes of action, this just eliminated one of them,” he added. “The others the CHRB can't address, like problems with the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act and prosecutorial philosophy.”

The post CHRB Emergency Rule on Compounded Drugs Geared to Shield Veterinarians appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

In a settlement with the medical board, Blea agreed to continuing education classes in record keeping, a remittance to the VMB of $131,464 for the investigation costs, and a three-year probationary period.

Those believing the return of Blea to his prior role would bring an end to the veterinary medical board's regulatory inroads into the state's racing industry would be sorely mistaken.

The medical board has ongoing cases against at least nine other backstretch veterinarians in California, and the nature of some of the accusations–often identical in nature to those leveled against Blea–reveal a yawning schism between the veterinary board and the CHRB concerning approaches to standard equine veterinary care.

Until these differences are rectified, the legal ramifications hang like a Sword of Damocles over not just the state's racetrack practitioners but the performance horse veterinary community in general.

“It's been very unusual,” says David Foley, executive director of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP), about the nature of the complaints against Blea and some of the other backstretch veterinarians.

“If the veterinary medical board is going to interpret the rules in a companion animal manner towards equine practitioners, nobody's going to want to practice in California,” Foley says.

Areas of Conflict

The main areas of disconnect with the medical board–at least where the CHRB is concerned–surrounds the use of what the VMB terms misbranded drugs like Thyro-L, non-FDA approved compounded drugs and the correct nature of the veterinarian-patient-client relationship. More broadly, the disconnect also ensnares the prophylactic use of medications and record keeping differences between small and large animal veterinarians.

In the process, these areas highlight often conflicting sets of rules between these separate state agencies throwing the work of backstretch practitioners into confusion and possible professional jeopardy.

In short, some of the veterinarians with pending cases face a conundrum should they settle with the VMB and return to work under probation: If they then continue to practice under the CHRB's standard of equine veterinary care-but against the VMB's interpretation of the rules-they could face stark professional consequences.

The VMB deems Thyro-L, or thyroxine, misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. And in laying out its accusations against some of the veterinarians, the medical board argues that the use of such misbranded drugs is prohibited through statutes written into the California Health and Safety Code.

Specifically, the code states that it is “unlawful for any person to receive in commerce any drug or device that is misbranded or to deliver or proffer for delivery any drug or device.”

Sarah Andrew

Essentially, a drug is misbranded if its labeling proves false or misleading in any particular situation, says attorney Mike Casey, who represented Blea in his case against the veterinary board. This could mean that the drug has been proven effective in the treatment of ailments for which it hasn't been labeled, says Casey, or vice versa.

But confusingly, Thyro-L is labeled for use in horses to treat hypothyroidism–a relatively rare equine condition–if dispensed by a licensed veterinarian.

Furthermore, many equine veterinarians routinely use it to treat a variety of conditions, including insulin resistance, for which there's a body of research.

“Veterinarians have a wide authority to prescribe medications,” says David Ramey, president of the Los Angeles Equine Advisory Committee, who says the VMB's stance on Thyro-L runs “absolutely contrary to regular medical practice.”

Most pertinent for backstretch veterinarians operating in California within the last decade is how the CHRB has issued advisories outlining thyroxine use in racehorses.

The first such advisory came in 2014 following an agency investigation into a series of sudden deaths among Bob Baffert-trainees, which found that the uniform use of thyroxine among the horses in question is “concerning in horses with suspected cardiac failure.”

The CHRB's much tightened rules surrounding thyroxine use went into effect earlier this year.

“If the VMB truly believed that Thyro-L was prohibited in use by the FDA as misbranded, why didn't they simply pick up the phone and call the CHRB,” says Casey. “They've been aware of the concerns surrounding Thyro-L since 2013.”

As a non-FDA approved drug, thyroxine overlaps another key area of conflict between the two agencies-the use of non-FDA approved compounded medications, which is permitted in veterinary practice in California.

So, where does the conflict arise?

Look no further than the CHRB's own Rule 1867 (b) which states that “the possession and/or use on the premises of a facility under the jurisdiction of the Board of any drug, substance or medication that has not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the United States.”

The veterinary medical board appears to interpret that rule categorically, stating in complaints against several backstretch veterinarians how no compounded drugs are FDA approved, even if compounded from FDA approved parent drugs.

The list of drugs the CHRB prohibits–at least according to the veterinary board–includes commonly used compounded medications like dantrolene, used on horses that tie-up, and naquasone, which ameliorates swelling.

Crucially, the CHRB's own interpretation of its rules follows existing state law, leaving the door open to backstretch practitioners using compounded medications so long as they contain FDA-approved parent drugs.

Indeed, just last month–seemingly with this interpretive discord in mind–the agency issued an advisory to its relevant stakeholders stating that while compounded medications are not FDA approved, the CHRB's “longstanding interpretation” of rule 1867 “is that lawfully prescribed, compounded medications which are manufactured according to Federal and State guidelines do not violate this regulation.”

The advisory continues: “The CHRB recognizes that compounded medications are necessary for the safe and effective treatment of horses. These medications contain approved Federal Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) substances, which have been compounded to achieve proper dosages for safe and effective equine treatment and are necessary for equine veterinarians to effectively treat various medical conditions.”

Furthermore, the CHRB has never filed a complaint for violation of 1867 (b), according to CHRB spokesperson, Mike Marten.

Which leads to the final area of tension-how to define the proper veterinarian-client-patient relationship on a racetrack backstretch.

As the veterinary medical board sees it, no veterinarian can prescribe, dispense or administer a medication without first performing three main tasks: examining the patient and documenting the findings, establishing and documenting a diagnosis, then communicating the best course of treatment with the client.

Among the list of common medications that backstretch practitioners allegedly issued without first performing these tasks includes acepromazine, a tranquilizer used routinely to keep horses calm, and GarstroGard, used to treat stomach ulcers.

But backstretch practitioners and performance horse veterinarians voice frustration with what they see as the VMB's narrow interpretation of this relationship.

The problem arises, says Ramey, because the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act-the overarching rules by which all licensed veterinarians must comport their business-is almost entirely geared around small animal practice.

“The practice act doesn't really address herd health,” says Ramey, who added the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA) is currently reviewing its model practice act to possibly address this. “In herd health, animals aren't always treated individually every time.”

Indeed, California's current laws are “far easier to understand and follow for small animal practitioners (who typically see individual animal patients in a brick-and-mortar context) than they are for veterinarians who treat herds, such as equine or livestock veterinarians,” wrote Dan Baxter, executive director of the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), in an emailed response to questions.

Another wrinkle in the picture, say experts, concerns the currently routine prophylactic use of certain medications in performance horses to avoid injury and the onset of common training-driven ailments.

A prime example in racehorses would be the use of acepromazine-or ace, for short-used ubiquitously during morning training to keep fractious horses calm and to minimize the risk of harm to themselves and others.

“They're saying you can't give GastroGard without listening to their gut sounds and without taking their temp' and what-not on every horse every time. But not every medication requires that degree of [daily diagnosis],” says John Madigan, professor emeritus at the UC Davis school of Veterinary Medicine, calling the VMB's recent actions “horrifically wrong,” due to what he sees as those unfamiliar with equine practice leading complaint investigations.

Who Wields the Stick?

One of the main questions that arise is this: To whose rules should backstretch practitioners adhere?

The CHRB strikes the note that neither agency appears to have “primacy” of authority when it comes to regulating backstretch veterinarians. “And that's the problem because in certain areas there seems to be a disagreement about interpretation,” says CHRB executive director, Scott Chaney.

Veterinary medical board spokesperson, Monica Vargas, equivocated, writing that while the VMB “cannot advise on CHRB enforcement of laws applicable to their licensees,” the VMB has jurisdiction over the practice of veterinary medicine in California “unless otherwise pre-empted.”

Legal pre-emption, in this case, appears to come in the form of the federal Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act's (HISA) racetrack safety rules, which went into effect July 1 and provides guidelines for record keeping and appropriate veterinary-patient-client relationships.

Scott Chaney | CHRB

Indeed, “federal authority does pre-empt state law and state reg's,” says Chaney.

A HISA spokesperson told the TDN that the agency has not yet involved itself with the differences that have arisen between the VMB and CHRB.

For backstretch practitioners with cases from prior years open against them, however-along with the state's broad contingent of performance horse practitioners-HISA pre-emption is a moot point.

That's why California's equine veterinarians and leading equine veterinary bodies have been publicly sounding the alarm about the potential pitfalls of this schism since at least the January veterinary board meeting.

After that January meeting, the CVMA and other stakeholder groups asked the VMB if they could submit a presentation at the following April board meeting about their concerns. The board pulled that presentation prior to the meeting, however.

Asked why, Vargas responded that the presentation went beyond the scope of the request and included, among other things, discussion regarding pending disciplinary matters. “The Administrative Procedure Act prohibits the Board from receiving communications regarding the merits of any issue in a pending disciplinary proceeding,” wrote Vargas.

Interestingly, in a subsequent statement to its constituents, the CVMA took issue with that interpretation, writing that the VMB routinely holds policy discussions concerning the Veterinary Medical Practice Act, including while enforcement cases are simultaneously being conducted.

“If it were the case that the VMB could never talk about problematic regulations or statutes due to a risk of infringing on current disciplinary cases, then the VMB would not be able to function as a rulemaking body at all,” wrote the CVMA.

After that aborted presentation, the VMB assembled a two-person Equine Practice Subcommittee tasked with researching the equine practice regulations and statutes, taking “input” from relevant stakeholders, then “returning to the Board with particular recommendations,” wrote Vargas.

The VMB failed to answer other questions about specific goals of the subcommittee, including those about timelines and about whether the subcommittee's work could lead to amendments to the California Veterinary Medicine Practice Act.

Vargas did write, however, that at the upcoming Multidisciplinary Advisory Committee meeting this Tuesday, the Equine Practice Subcommittee will provide an “update on the issues the Board has directed the Subcommittee to research.”

One of these key stakeholders is the CVMA, which has already approached the VMB several times requesting an “in-depth look be taken at the aforementioned laws,” wrote Baxter.

“The CVMA will continue to engage the VMB in dialogue about the regulations and will strongly advocate for the veterinary profession,” Baxter added.

According to Chaney, the CHRB met with the subcommittee some two weeks ago.

The CHRB's goal for these ongoing negotiations, Chaney says, is “clarity” for licenced backstretch practitioner. “All racing veterinarians that I've spoken with want to comply with CHRB rules and vet' med' board rules, they just don't know what they are right now,” he says.

This “clarity” could come the way of changes to the California Veterinary Medicine Practice Act or to the CHRB's own regulations, says Chaney. But changes to these state rule books can be a glacially slow process.

In the meantime, backstretch practitioners with open cases against them face a Catch-22.

On the one hand, they're incentivized to settle their cases swiftly or even to defend themselves due to the VMB's right, if it prevails on any finding, to seek cost recovery, says Casey.

For Blea, that was a six-figure sum.

However, if the veterinarians settle with the VMB before these practical differences have been smoothed over, they face potentially serious consequences if they then return to active practice under a probationary period.

The VMB is “aware of that potential,” responded Chaney, when asked about this conundrum. But he was unable to elaborate on whether the VMB has proposed any timeline for resolving the agencies' differences.

Investigatory integrity

Which leads to concerns among certain stakeholders about the manner in which the VMB is conducting its investigations into California's backstretch practitioners.

According to both Casey and Blea, neither Blea nor the clients relevant to his case were interviewed as part of the investigatory process.

“At no point did anyone ever ask Jeff [Blea] what was the purpose of administering acepromazine. What was the purpose of administering aspirin powder. He was never asked at any point during the quote, investigation, end quote about anything in his medical record. Not once,” says Casey.

A busy backstretch | Sarah Andrew

“Neither were the trainers, the owners, the grooms,” Casey added. “No one.”

The TDN asked the veterinary medical board about these claims-including about standard investigatory procedures when a practitioner's veterinarian-patient-client relationship is in question-but the agency offered no response.

Other prominent figures in equine practice question the VMB's impartiality in these matters.

As someone frequently called upon to provide expert testimony in cases involving equine practice, Ramey responded to the veterinary medical board's open call for experts in Blea's case, he says.

Ramey told the TDN that when he saw the accusations against Blea, however, he spent an hour and a half explaining to two VMB attorneys that the accusations against Blea amounted to typical standards of care in horses facing rigorous training programs.

“These horses are at risk of developing certain problems, and you're trying to help mitigate that risk,” says Ramey, describing his version of the conversation with the VMB's attorneys.

“The next day they let me know that they did not need my services as an expert witness,” says Ramey, who added that he is “firmly convinced” that the VMB had a “pre-determined outcome that they were looking for.”

It should be noted that Ramey considers himself Blea's professional and personal acquaintance.

“I think it's important that the public is protected against poor veterinary practice,” he responded, when asked about how this relationship might color his opinions. “But [Blea's case] wasn't that.”

When asked about Ramey's claims, Vargas wrote that “As the adjudicator in administrative disciplinary actions, the Board does not participate in prosecutorial activity leading up to an administrative hearing. As such, the Board has no knowledge of expert witness preparation discussions for administrative hearings.”

In speaking with nearly a dozen equine practitioners or leading figures within prominent veterinary organizations, it's clear the ongoing philosophical and practical discord in equine practice has rattled the veterinary community in California.

Some veterinarians have already begun to question their professional futures in the state, says Madigan. “Unfortunately,” he adds, “a lot of veterinarians are thinking 'I just hope it doesn't happen to me.'”

The post “Horrifically Wrong”: California VMB and Equine Practitioners at Odds appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post