Tag: The Paddock

Most of the time, you'll see new sponsored series pop up on our website without a lot of fanfare. Maybe we'll put an intro on the first piece explaining what we endeavor for the series to cover, but that's about it. That's why I want to tell you the story of two new series, in hopes that you'll appreciate seeing them in the spotlights as much as I do.

Normally the way a sponsored series works with us is that an advertiser pays to have a set of their ads appear in the series, and sometimes in an email that may get sent out informing readers a new piece has been published. Usually their goal is to get their business name in front of as many potential customers as possible. Ours is to keep the site going, and to draw in enough to pay for the time of whoever writes the articles for us.

Avion Law contacted us recently because they wanted to do something a little different. They wanted to sponsor a Charity Spotlight series that would profile the great work of a different racing non-profit each week. While their name appears in the title of each post, they also donated the advertising space to the charity highlighted. Non-profits often have little to no budget for buying ad space (and yes, we do provide a non-profit discount), so this is great exposure for them. Our first subject, California Thoroughbred Horsemen's Foundation, was thrilled with the results, which you can see here.

The other new series I'm really excited about is The Horse Comes 1/ST, which is presented by 1/ST Racing. This one will be a monthly feature that highlights a different accredited aftercare organization – their work, what makes them tick, how their approach may differ a little from others. Again, great exposure for the hard-working folks out on the front lines. 1/ST also asked us if they can use space at the end of each profile to plug an accredited aftercare organization in need of donations, and if we'd be willing to match donations up to $100. We thought it was a great idea. You can find the first piece in the series here and support their chosen organization this month — Second Stride — here.

What I like about both of these is not just that they're both filled with feel-good stories; it's that they're both examples of sponsors helping support the kind of coverage they want to read. You've heard the phrase 'Be the change you want to see in the world'? These companies are leading the change they want to see in racing media by helping us tell these stories.

I've written before about a familiar critique of our publication – that we're too negative. While I take issue with the categorization of news this way for a lot of reasons, one of them is that it's simply untrue. We've had a couple of similar series through the years – Good News Friday and the OTTB Showcase come to mind. (Click their names to read those archives.) Those were great series, but eventually our sponsorship contracts for them ended, and they weren't getting reads/clicks/shares the way they had at the beginning. Their trailing off wasn't an intentional editorial shift, it was just something that had run its course at the time.

After the above-linked editorial came out, we heard from 1/ST to say they wanted to sponsor the reappearance of a regular aftercare feature.

I'm really glad to see that these kinds of feel-good features matter to advertisers, and I'm really hoping readers will take this opportunity to read and share these new pieces among their friends.

The post Voss: Lovers Of Good News Stories, Rejoice appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

The new Horseracing Integrity andYou Safety Authority (HISA), despite repeated pledges of transparency, has failed to disclose even the most basic information about its own manner of governance.  This failure is well below the standards and practices of state racing commissions.

Background

On July 5, 2022, Marty Irby, executive director of the Animal Wellness Action, made a written request of Lisa Lazarus, the CEO of HISA, for documents and items of interest (letter here). The request asked for the information to be provided within 30 days. Ms. Lazarus subsequently acknowledged receipt of the request. The request remains unfulfilled.

Having served as executive director of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission for 25 years (1990-2015), I have experience in providing the public and racing participants with information about its regulator. In my opinion, the type of information requested of HISA, in most all instances, is available to the public by state racing commissions through its websites, state databases or by written request. In fact, I suggested each and every item of information that Mr. Irby requested verbatim in his letter dated July 5, 2022.

Quite frankly, much of the information requested should already be available on HISA's website. Including,

1. Notices, agendas, minutes, transcripts, and information packets of HISA board of directors' meetings along with the same information regarding the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Committee and Racetrack Safety Committee.
2. Mechanism by which the public can attend and participate at these meetings.
3. A detailed itemized annual budget.
4. List of employees along with title and salaries.
5. Copy of contracts.
6. List of donations, gifts, and loans.

The request was made in conjunction with Animal Wellness Action announcing a watchdog initiative (hisawatchdog.org) to hold HISA accountable to the highest of regulatory standards. The basic information requested was an initial step to review an aspect of HISA's regulatory performance. As HISA did not comply with the request, we are left to critique its lack of transparency.

Behind closed doors

Unlike state racing commissions which are statutorily mandated to conduct its business in full view of the public, HISA as a non-public entity has chosen to operate away from public view. This practice raises issues and concerns not only of transparency but also of competency. Simple questions go unanswered. Do the board directors even meet? How often? Do they all show up? Do they participate in meetings? Are the fully engaged? Do they ask intelligent questions? What issues are discussed and decided? Are they given access to all pertinent information? What staff recommendations are provided? How do they vote? Or, for that matter, do they even vote?

With no notice of meetings, no public agenda, no minutes, and no transcript, what is the public or racing participant to think?

And that's not the worst of it! Even if those documents are made public, why the secrecy? Shouldn't the people who have skin in the game and are affected by HISA's decisions that impact their livelihoods have the opportunity to look their regulators in the eye and make their pitch. Shouldn't the public have access to ALL meetings. Regardless of the outcome of any particular issue, at least racing industry participants should get a fair shake that can only be provided in an open meeting.

What Is HISA afraid of?

Quite frankly, I don't want to just see the document. I want to see the board and committees live, in person if possible or through a webcast, to judge for myself on whether they are competent and acting in the best interest of the racing industry

 A one-way street named hypocrisy

HISA talks BIG about transparency. In fact, it has repeatedly bragged on how much information it is requiring industry participants to provide to them. Most all participants, including trainers, jockeys and grooms, are required to register with HISA. All horses, and their ever-changing whereabouts must also be registered. HISA is also requiring an unprecedented amount of minute and detailed information to be disclosed from veterinarians and racing operators.

I, for one, am not opposed to these requirements. As a long-time advocate for federal oversight, I believe these requirements are necessary as long as they are utilized properly and with appropriate disclosure to the public.

So, let's contrast HISA's big transparency talk with its practice of non-self-disclosure. There is a word to describe those who “talk the talk” but don't “walk the walk” or have a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude. The word is hypocrisy.

Who is paying for all this anyway?

One of the most contentious and feared aspects of HISA oversight is how much it is going to cost and who is going to have to pay for it all. To some the cost may be an unreasonable and unnecessary burden while, on the other end of the spectrum, others may feel the amount being spent is not enough to do the job properly.

The HISA assessment for 2022 is $14.3 million. Payment options vary among states but most commonly are shared by tracks and horsemen. This year's assessment covers only the racetrack safety portion of HISA's responsibilities. The assessment may balloon when the anti-doping responsibilities begin next year. This makes HISA's position to shield its expenditures from industry scrutiny untenable.

One of the most basic and straightforward ways to determine financial responsibility is to review a detailed itemized budget, related contracts, and employee list with salaries. None of which HISA has provided.

At this stage in the game, any assurances from HISA about being financially responsible is bound to be self-serving. No talk. Action. Meaning provide the documents so the public can decide for themselves.

Note to HISA: remember who is paying for all this!

Conclusion

With regards to the transparency of self-disclosure, HISA is all take-take-take and no give-give-give.

Hypocrisy is always a bad look. In fact, the optics are horrible.

Animal Action Wellness, through its watchdog efforts at hisawatchdog.org, is committed to hold HISA accountable to the highest regulatory standards. You can comment on this article or leave a message or tip on HISA enforcement (here).

Joe Gorajec (retired) served as the executive director of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission for 25 years (1990-2015) and is a past chairman of the Racing Commissioners International (2008)  He has  volunteered as an unpaid advisor to the hisawatchdog.org.

 

 

 

 

 

The post Gorajec: In Early Stages Of Its Existence, HISA Fails Transparency Test appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Dear Editor:

This letter is to briefly address the “House of Cards” article by Natalie Voss relating to Medina Spirit's pre-race screening.

Ms. Voss focused on the pre-race screening testing for Medina Spirit performed by Industrial Labs on April 18, 2021, preceding the May 1, 2021 Kentucky Derby. As now confirmed by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC), the pre-race “out of competition” screening reported no medications or foreign substances in Medina Spirit in excess of lab screening limits excepting the commonly used antiacid ulcer medication Omeprazole, which was used in accordance with published regulations.

Ms. Voss seems to insinuate that the clearance reported by the lab screening report suggests that the now infamous Otomax (containing Gentamicin, Clotrimazole with a 9% Betamethasone Valerate component) could not be the source for the post-race Betamethasone positive because it was not reported in the pre-race screening testing. Not referenced in her article are: lab screening limits for pre-race screening, situational bioavailability of a topical ointment on a horse in a race­ training environment, progression of the skin lesion, variance of usage and dosage based upon clinical indications, and other factors that a cautious reporter might query before displaying a “house of cards” banner headlining such a superficial effort.

The Voss article also makes a glancing reference to “a separate sample from another horse… did indicate a level of .319 ng/ml of dexamethasone/Betamethasone.” Ms. Voss omits that the “sample from another horse” on the same screening sheet was NOT from Mr. Baffert's barn. That sample “from another horse” reported a result of .319 ng/ml of Betamethasone which is 15 times in excess of the 21 picograms reported in Medina Spirit from the Otomax ointment. The sample “from another horse” also contained phenylbutazone at a level 6.5 times the permitted race threshold. Who was that horse and did he run in the Derby? Ms. Voss did not report on those facts.

The KHRC, the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI), the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC), and every racing regulatory agency in the United States expressly classifies and regulates Betamethasone as an intra-articular injectable. Racing regulatory agencies, including the KHRC, rely on peer-reviewed scientific studies and the esteemed advisory associations that publish the monographs, bulletins, and proposed rules relating to the use of medications and substances administered to a race horse in competition. All studies and rule proposals regarding Betamethasone relate specifically to the injectable form and the stated risks associated with joint injections. There are no peer-reviewed studies, industry advisories, or agency rulemaking regarding topical use of an ointment containing any corticosteroid.

Ointments containing corticosteroids for skin lesions, rashes, skin infections and fungal outbreaks have been prevalently used for decades for humans and animals. The FDA has formally approved more than 40 such ointments and salves. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) clearly spoke to the use of such ointments, and specifically those containing betamethasone. Under WADA's rules, betamethasone present in an athlete is expressly permitted–including on the day of competition–if due to the use of a topical medication. The medication, as a topical route of administration, has no effect on performance, and its use is legitimate. The use of Otomax for Medina Spirit was clinically indicated, prescribed and dispensed by a treating veterinarian and was transparently and promptly reported to the California Horse Racing Board and to the Jockey Club medication reporting data site on the same day it was prescribed and dispensed. “House of Cards” to “House Restored.”

–Clark Brewster
Attorney for Zedan Racing

---

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, please write to info at paulickreport.com and include contact information where you may be reached if editorial staff have any questions.

The post Letter To The Editor: Zedan Attorney Responds To Paulick Report Story On Medina Spirit OOCT appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post