TDN Q&A | Horse Racing Free Tips

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

TDN: Which areas are those?

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

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

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

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

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

Lazarus: Yes.

Sarah Andrew

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

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

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

TDN: Do you have an idea of cost?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDN: Not?

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

Coglianese

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coady

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source of original post

Q&A with Zach Madden of Buckland Sales

When Zach Madden announced Tuesday he is now the sole owner of Buckland Sales, as partner Ro Parra has decided to step back, we figured there might be more than the basic story put out to the public. Jen Roytz learned it's a feel-good story–someone using the success they've had to help others carve their path.

JR: How did the idea of Buckland Sales come about?

ZM: The idea came organically between myself and Millennium Farms back in the fall [of] 2015. I was doing a lot of different things on the farm, which I am fond of, but I wanted to devote my entire focus to the sales.

That's where my passion truly lies and where my skillset and personality fit best. I wanted to focus all my time and energy on what I love.

JR: Has Buckland developed and evolved the way you and Ro envisioned?

ZM: Yes. From the beginning we wanted it to grow, but we wanted to be strategic about the growth so it never evolved faster than we could manage well. The growth has been very solid going into our sixth year. Ideally, I'd like to be big enough to hold our own and represent the sport's top prospects, yet small enough that we are always able to give each customer and horse the personalized experience Buckland was created to offer.

Consigning horses is ultra-competitive. There are a lot of truly good consignors out there that I respect and admire. My goal is for others to hold us in that same esteem.

JR: What does it mean to have Ro entrust Buckland to you?

ZM: I'm very appreciative of what Ro was able to contribute as a business partner. He has been a successful entrepreneur in several industries and the lessons he taught me will serve me well throughout my life.

In any industry, but especially with horses, it's not just a business. It's personal. It's about having relationships built on respect, skill and communication. It's about being as good as you can possibly be at what you've chosen to do, and it's about how you approach and work through challenges…finding the opportunity in adversity.

As appreciative as I am to Ro for all he's contributed to Buckland and taught me personally, I'm even more appreciative of his friendship. He knows I will be pinging him for advice and I look forward to celebrating both of our successes and milestones as time goes on.

JR: After the market has such a strong resurgence in 2021 after 2020, what are your predictions for the consignment market in the coming year?

ZM: If the last couple years have taught us anything, it's to take nothing for granted.

I think we were all very appreciative of the vibrant market in 2021. I feel the trends should continue. The horse business and the people in it are very resilient. Hopefully the market stays resilient as well.

JR: Based on what you saw from their first yearlings last year, which freshman sires do you think will make headlines this year?

ZM: Bolt d'Oro–I really loved the physicals on his yearlings last year. They were strong and athletic.

JR: If you could make one simple change to the industry, what would it be?

ZM: More uniformity. I think this could be applied to various sectors in different ways, but at the core, I think the more we can strive toward uniformity, the better, stronger and more appealing to outside participants we will be.

JR: What advice would you give to someone looking for a consignor for their bloodstock?

ZM: Get a consignor who can give you and your horse(s) personal attention. Dig deeper than looking at websites or what they say on social media. Have the conversations and ask the right questions to find someone who genuinely cares about your results and that you can trust.

JR: Did you have any New Year's resolutions for 2022?

ZM: Lose 20 pounds. Check back with me at the yearling sales for a progress report.

JR: Who's your early Derby pick for this year?

ZM: Pappacap (Gun Runner). He traveled around, danced every dance and proved that he's very game.

The post Q&A with Zach Madden of Buckland Sales appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part Two

After 15 years as California's equine medical director, Dr. Rick Arthur has stepped away from the post. A vocal proponent of tightened welfare practices in the sport, Arthur has spearheaded during his tenure a slew of equine safety reforms that have made California arguably the most stringent regulatory environment in the States. Arthur's forthrightness, however, has led to him staking out positions that have at times proven polarizing.

The day after Arthur officially stepped down, he conducted a Q&A with the TDN, the first part of which can be seen here. In it, he discussed his tenure as California racing's chief veterinarian, the impending implementation of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), and the recent controversy stirred up by a Washington Post report into his investigation into a series of sudden deaths among Bob Baffert trainees between 2011 and 2013.

The following is the concluding half of the interview. It has been edited only very lightly for grammatical and clarification purposes.

TDN: Another Washington Post story from earlier this week details a 23-page California deputy attorney general analysis of the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB)'s handling of the Justify case in which it states, “The court could find the CHRB abused its discretion and acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary fact.” Now, you've repeatedly said that the only part of the CHRB's handling of the case that concerned you was the secrecy aspect. If you could go back and redo that whole case, would you do anything differently?

RA: First of all, the case was handled at the recommendation of staff counsel in Sacramento, after consulting with attorneys in the business consumer services and housing agency which oversees the CHRB and with the attorney general's office. That is what was proposed. I certainly agreed with that, in accordance with California law. The dismissal of those cases was done entirely in accordance with regulations and California law.

There is no question that the only person who questions it is obviously Darrell Vienna [attorney representing plaintiff Mick Ruis], who planted the story with the Washington Post. I told the reporter he was being played. But anyway, that's a different issue. The only issue as far as I was concerned was that it was unfair to disqualify this horse when we were going through a process simply because of bureaucratic inefficiency by the California Horse Racing Board. I won't get into the details about why that was the case, but if you go back and look at the regulatory structure or the regulatory processes in California or of the CHRB at that time, I think it's pretty easy to see.

Since then, just to be clear, there have been five scopolamine positives in California. Not one trainer was sanctioned. Not one horse was disqualified. That doesn't include almost a dozen other horses that had scopolamine in their samples below the international screen limit that we use in the laboratory. So, I really have no regrets over it. I have no apologies.

You're talking about information that was provided, most likely, by [CHRB] commissioner Oscar Gonzales, who used to work for Darrell Vienna, to Darrell Vienna to promote this story because it just lost in a court case in superior court. So, where this is going to go, I don't know. But we had a reporter that was played by a plaintiff's attorney as far as I'm concerned.

TDN: Are you saying that Commissioner Gonzales was the one who leaked the document?

RA: I don't know if Oscar was the one, but Oscar has certainly been the proponent of keeping the Justify issue alive. Actually, I filed a whistleblower complaint against Commissioner Gonzales for basically arguing the Justify case as if he was representing Ruis with talking points that were clearly provided by Darrell Vienna.

TDN: When did you file that?

RA: Over a year ago.

Horsephotos

TDN: Has anything happened?

RA: No, I haven't heard back and the state auditor's office told me not to expect to hear back. I'm sure Commissioner Gonzales knows that I filed a whistleblower complaint. I think I haven't hidden my disdain for Commissioner Gonzales for a long time.

There certainly have been attorneys that have tried to play commissioners over the years. And I think that we have an ambitious petty politician that wants to make a name for himself that allowed himself to be played. The Justify case was dismissed in accordance to state law, and it was not dismissed by Rick Arthur. It was not dismissed by [former CHRB executive director] Rick Baedeker. It was dismissed by the board, which is required by law. And that was done properly in accordance to law.

It is a done deal as far as I'm concerned, as much as people would like to keep it alive.

TDN: Now, you brought up the equine safety improvements that have occurred in California. We've made large demonstrable strides forward in that regard. But economically, the sport faces any number of serious challenges. What do you think it needs to do to ensure its longevity and sustainability?

RA: It's a real challenge to maintain the economic health of horse racing and make sure that we're doing everything right by the horse. They don't always go in the same direction. For example, we've raced almost 50% of our starts on the turf course here on a meet that is almost six months long. That really puts a lot of stress on the turf course. But that's where people like to run their horses. You have to have full fields.

We'd obviously like to have breaks so that the turf course could be in better condition. Maybe we need an additional turf course. I don't know exactly what it would be. But we do have to make it more economically viable for the owners, otherwise they're not going to [be able to afford] the PET or MRI [scans], all the other diagnostic techniques and examinations that we now require. So, somehow we have to improve the economics. But the key to sustainability is to make sure that we are taking care of the horse.

Sarah Andrew

TDN: Do you think any of these safety measures are overkill?

RA: I don't know if they're overkill. They're maybe a little bit further than we need to go. But I think we'll sort those out over time.

TDN: Which ones?

RA: For example, a 30-day stand down for fetlock injections with corticosteroids. Not unreasonable, but probably more than needs to be required.

[Note: Arthur subsequently clarified his remarks that his frustration is with what can be the “inability” to regulate in a “meaningful way,” and pointed out that most international racing authorities use at most a 14-day corticosteroid injection stand down.]

TDN: Do you think racing in California is in better shape now than when you first took your position?

RA: I think in terms of the regulations, I think we're in better shape now. I do think that we have lost some public support for horse racing that is going to be very hard to get back. I think we're always going to be under the gun. The animal rights activists are never going to be satisfied with horse racing, just like they aren't satisfied with any other animal use.

California's an odd state that way–most people don't know anything about horses. They don't know a lot about animals. There's not that rural background. Not very many people were raised on farms or around animals. So, there's really kind of a disconnect about how animals should be used in society, and that may not be sustainable for a long period of time.

I think the horse racing structure is in very good shape to go forward. But whether it will satisfy the public in California, I think is going to be hard to predict. I mean we've decreased fatalities, like I said, by 75%. Is that good enough? We will never have racing when there's zero fatalities, just like there will never be flying with zero crashes. I mean, that's just the reality of it.

Horsephotos

TDN: How real an existential threat do you think that is to California racing?

RA: I think it's a real existential threat to racing in California. The Santa Anita fiasco really exposed horse racing to people who weren't paying attention. The racing press understood that horses were injured in racing. The non-racing press really had no idea.

The type of questions that I had from reporters who had never covered racing before, never covered sport, were pretty astounding. I think a lot of people didn't realize that there are fatalities in horse racing. I think it came as a big surprise. And when you look at the numbers, it can be pretty frightening. I'm talking about nationally–there's a lot of horses in training.

TDN: How successful has the sport been thus far in challenging that narrative and what do we need to do better?

RA: I think we pride ourselves on the care we give our horses. There are certainly risks associated with it, just like there is with a lot of different production agriculture. But, I mean, [compare that] to the wild horses out in the fields, which have a life expectancy of about a third of what the horses that are managed have. I think sometimes people don't understand how well we take care of horses, and I think we have to present that message.

It used to be that people came around to the barns, look at the horses and pet them. A lot of people have never touched a horse, and I think if they get that interaction with the horse, that's something that we can sell.

To me, racing is a sport. Horses are athletes. I'm not involved in the gambling aspect of it myself. Gambling pays for the sport for the rest of us. Obviously it's a business. Gambling is key to it and getting horses and getting full field sizes or having the more races, the better the business model. But really to me, I think we have to sell the sport more than we do.

Horsephotos

TDN: What advice would you like to give to your successor, Dr. [Jeff] Blea?

RA: Well, I think Dr. Blea is well suited for this position. He's been in national leadership positions. He certainly is aware of controversy, which comes with this job. You can't avoid it if you're going to do the job right. I think the real issue is to do what you think is right and stand up for what you think is right.

TDN: And what's next for you?

RA: I'm still going to stay involved. I'm still involved in national and international organizations. I'll continue to do that. I've certainly had some opportunities that I'm mulling over in the future. But how hard I want to work? I really don't know.

I have some research projects that [are] still in the works. I'm involved with the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, RMTC [Racing Medication and Testing Consortium]–those sorts of things that I'm going to continue to do. And the Oak Creek Charitable Foundation as well. So, I'll keep involved in those.

The post Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part Two appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part One

After 15 years as California's equine medical director, Dr. Rick Arthur has stepped away from the post.

A long-time vocal champion, both in his home state and at the international level, of tightened welfare practices in the sport, Arthur has spearheaded a slew of precedent-setting medication and equine safety reforms in California.

During those 15 years, Arthur has been at the helm of the industry's veterinary ship while California has navigated a series of tumultuous storms, including a benighted venture to switch from dirt to synthetic racetrack surfaces during the first few years of his tenure, as well as the Santa Anita welfare crisis that erupted near the beginning of 2019. Known on occasion to be pugnacious and forthright, Arthur has also endured his fair share of criticism as California racing's chief equine veterinarian, most recently concerning the case surrounding Justify's scopolamine positive subsequent to the horse's GI Santa Anita Derby victory of 2018.

Bearer of many hats, Arthur is a former private veterinarian, Thoroughbred owner and breeder, and a member of The Jockey Club. He was also a past-president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) and was honored with the organization's President's Award in 2014. Dr. Jeff Blea, a SoCal-based private veterinarian with 28 years of experience and another former AAEP president, has filled Arthur's vacant seat.

The following is the opening half of a conversation Arthur conducted with the TDN on his first day off the job. It has been edited only very lightly for grammatical and clarification purposes.

TDN: After 15 years as California's equine medical director, what is your main takeaway from that period?

RA: My main takeaway is that horse racing has to pay attention to the horse and develop policies and programs and regulations that put the horse first.

TDN: And looking at the totality of what's happened during those 15 years, has California been successful at doing that?

RA: If you look at the numbers objectively, we've decreased fatalities almost 75% over that period. Some of it is [due to] decreased racing, but far and away, the majority is [due to] the policies and the regulations we put in place and [by] encouraging the culture change to put the horse first.

TDN: How would you characterize that “culture change” during your tenure?

RA: Up until the Santa Anita situation in 2019, I don't think a lot of horsemen really understood that society has changed and that it's necessary to make changes that put the horse first. And there certainly was a lot of push-back when you look at things like the fatality review program, when you look at voided claims, to the continuing education program, to put more science into the art of training. All those things we had tremendous push-back on really until the Santa Anita fiasco.

Horsephotos

TDN: You bring that up. So, the last two years has arguably been the most transformative period in California in terms of medication and safety reforms, many of which you'd been trying to push through prior. You've talked a lot about the cumbersome administrative law process, but why do you think it took something like the Santa Anita welfare crisis to bring about those modifications?

RA: It is very easy to stop regulations in the way that the California Horse Racing Board [CHRB] operated previously. And if you go back and look at all those initiatives that we started–continuing education for trainers, voiding claims, third party Lasix, post-mortem review programs, restricting intraarticular injections, even banning anabolic steroids back when I first started–there was always somebody who was opposing those changes. Even lowering toe grabs that were demonstrated to be associated with increased injury. There was always push-back at every step.

As I said, it's very easy to stop a regulation. Even though everybody thinks that it's easy to add regulations, it's actually just the opposite.

TDN: Immediately after the Santa Anita crisis, these changes arrived very suddenly, a mixture of in-house rules that dictated state policy and sweeping regulations that came thick and fast. Looking back, do you think it was done in a manner that was, in its entirety, fair to the horsemen and their livelihoods, and would you have done things differently given a second chance?

RA: Well remember that many of those were initiated by The Stronach Group.

TDN: That's what I meant by in-house rules…

RA: Some of them were a major change to trainers. In reality, I think some of them were a little bit stricter than they needed to be and done a little bit precipitously. But the fact is, it did open the door for many changes that have been shown to be quite effective.

TDN: Multi-factorial is the key term in any catastrophic injury and in the case of what happened at Santa Anita, official reports point to a variety of precipitating factors. What do you see is the main factor which made that particular Santa Anita winter/spring meet so deadly?

RA: Racing on a bad racetrack.

TDN: Can you elaborate on that?

RA: Look at the weather in the first two months of 2019–the previous year, 90% of the starts were on a fast track. In 2019 for the first two months, 60% of the race starts were on a fast track. We had so much rain during that period of time, there was really not an opportunity to refurbish the racetrack.

In early March, when they stopped racing, we had a dry period. They were able to bring in their previous track superintendent to rework the racetrack. And after that period of time, we really had a relatively safe racetrack. So, the real issue was continuing to race on a compromised racetrack. And it's not just the racetrack that's responsible for that, but horsemen that actually entered their horses and trained their horses on tracks that were not ideal.

TDN: Many see The Stronach Group's ban of Jerry Hollendorfer as an act of scapegoating. Do you think they [TSG] were right to ban him?

RA: I was not involved in that decision.

[Note: Arthur explained that he's involved in ongoing litigation between Hollendorfer and several entities in California, and was therefore unable to comment further]

Horsephotos

TDN: Now, the changes have been extensive over the last two years but we've a lot more on the horizon. In exactly a year's time, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act is expected to be implemented. How do you see it fitting into California's existing regulatory and safety and welfare infrastructure?

RA: It will be very, very difficult for the [HISA] safety program to come up with a program as extensive as California's and send it around the rest of the country. That suggests to me that California will still continue to have a stricter, or let's say a more robust, safety program than HISA is going to be able to develop.

How will that actually work? In my reading of the regulation, it's hard to understand because the funds for that safety program will no longer be available to the CHRB–those are some of the nebulous aspects of the HISA law as to exactly how those funds will be developed and how they'll be distributed.

For example, in California we have monitoring veterinarians as a matter of law. As of right now, those are provided by the track associations. That [would conceivably] be something the regulatory agency would oversee. But those individuals are supervised by law and by regulation and by the CHRB official veterinarians. So, how that all mixes together I think is going to be a real challenge for HISA to sort out.

TDN: Ultimately, do you see it as a plus or a minus to California racing?

RA: I suspect it's going to be a step back. I think eventually, long-term for national racing, I certainly understand the need for HISA. I think the national state-by-state regulation of racing and organizations like the ARCI have found themselves incapable of developing a national sport. NTRA was supposed to have a legal office that never came to be either. So, having one entity with control over all of racing, I certainly understand the need for it. And I think it's really, probably, the only way racing is going to survive long term.

TDN: Arguably, the biggest problem in drug testing in the future concerns the detection of genetically engineered products like EPO that mimic the body's own hormones and proteins. If USADA is HISA's drug enforcement agency, do you think they'll do a better job of policing these substances than the sport already does?

RA: It really depends. I certainly know that USADA and WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] have capabilities in looking at gene doping. The IFHA [International Federation of Horseracing Authorities] has gene doping committees as well. In fact, there's liaison between WADA and the IFHA that I'm involved with. I do think that genetic testing, particularly gene doping, is going to be a real challenge, very expensive. So, I do think having a central entity is going to be critical to addressing that threat.

I don't think you could do it state by state, even though the best school, UC Davis, has some very, very talented people that understand genetics very well. But it's going to take it an international effort to address the risk of gene doping and gene manipulation.

TDN: So, what you're saying is USADA brings…

RA: …They bring international cooperation. It looks as if, even though USADA is different than WADA–certainly internationally–the racing industry is teaming with the FEI [The International Federation for Equestrian Sports], IFHA and WADA to try to pool our resources and understand the risks of how detection of gene doping and gene manipulation could affect horse racing going forward, and how to test for it.

Breeders' Cup/Eclipse Sportswire

TDN: Knowing what you know, how prolific is gene doping and gene manipulation in the sport?

RA: Right now, there is no evidence that it is being used. However, this is an area that has made leaps and bounds in advancement since we started the IFHA gene doping subcommittee five, six years ago. It's an entirely different environment today.

I do think there are potential risks in terms of getting genes or administering genes to horses. The real problem with gene doping is it's easy to get a gene in a horse, but it's not easy to get it to do what you want it to do. Well, that's true of even gene therapy and other uses of gene manipulation.

Having said that, I do think it's a bigger risk today than it was five years ago. And there is a lot of advancement in this area that caused us concern. But as of right now, I know of no instance internationally of gene doping being used in horse racing. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. That doesn't mean it's not going on. We're looking for it.

TDN: In the last month, The Washington Post has come out with a couple of reports, in one of which it's alleged that trainer Bob Baffert used political coercion against you to influence the outcome of your investigation into the series of sudden deaths among his trainees between 2011 and 2013. In the final report, you concluded that although the blanket prescribing of thyroxine to all Baffert horses does appear unusual, “The fatalities remain unexplained and there is no evidence whatsoever CHRB rules or regulations have been violated or illicit activity played a part.”

You told the Post the two things–the political pressure and the report's findings–were unrelated. If you were to conduct the investigation today, would the findings and the outcome be any different?

RA: No. If you look in the necropsy reports that are up on the CHRB website, you'll see that there's all different sorts of explanations that are associated with some of the sudden deaths.

One of them was an anticoagulant rodenticide. We had a number of cases in California over the following years that were associated with anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning, including ponies, so it's not as if somebody was trying to drug a pony with rat poison. So, the real issue is that there were no violations of CHRB rules.

That does not mean that you condone the blanket administration of thyroxine. And certainly, if you look at my comments, either during the presentation at the CHRB meeting or in the report, Bob Baffert trains his horses hard. They were all on thyroxine. A number of them were on clenbuterol at the same time. And all of that, even though there's no violation of rules, really reflects on Bob Baffert's management of his stable.

If you look, there's actually a statistical analysis that shows this was not a random event, that there's something that was associated with those horses–whether it was Hollywood Park, whether it was Bob Baffert, whether it's the way the horses were managed, thyroxine, the entire program–there was something associated with those horses that put them at greater risk than the average horse. We just didn't know what it was.

TDN: Given the ethical framework that you abide by, how would you characterize the way Baffert managed his barn?

RA: The way the barn was managed was to win races–win big races with very expensive horses.

Horsephotos

TDN: Ethically–by your ethical framework.

RA: How would I best answer that question. It's not the way I like to see horses managed.

TDN: Since then, has the way in which he manages his barn improved?

RA: He actually quit using thyroxine before the report, after consulting with his own veterinarians about some of the things that were going on. I do think that they did change some management practices in the barn, but if you watch the way that Bob trains horses, he trains them very aggressively.

In fact, probably, and I've said this before, Bob Baffert really changed the way that horses are trained here. They're trained much harder than they were back 30 or 40 years ago when I started practicing. He works his horses very fast, very hard. And unfortunately, other trainers who try to emulate him don't have those million-dollar yearlings that can work 58 and change.

I think it used to be, everybody tried to emulate Charlie Whittingham, the way he trained, which was a more considered approach to training horses as compared to the Bob Baffert Quarter Horse style of training.

TDN: Do you think that change ultimately has been for the better or to the detriment of the Thoroughbred racehorse in California?

RA: I'm a big fan of Charlie Whittingham, Ron McAnally, Dick [Richard] Mandella. Those types of trainers.

Stay tuned for part two of this Q&A with Dr. Arthur.

The post Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part One appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post