united states anti-doping agency | Horse Racing Free Tips

Baltas Hearing Rescheduled, Entries Denied by Los Al Stewards

Last month, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) issued a complaint against trainer Richard Baltas alleging that between Apr. 15 and May 8 this year, 23 horses in his care had been administered on race-day a substance containing the plant extracts higenamine and paenol in violation of the board's rules.

A hearing on the complaint, originally scheduled for early and then possibly late July, is now set for Aug. 3 with the Del Mar stewards beginning at 9 a.m., according to CHRB spokesperson, Mike Marten, in an email Friday afternoon.

In that same email, the CHRB wrote that Baltas–whose license remains active pending the hearing–had attempted to enter horses during the daytime Thoroughbred meet at Los Alamitos, but that the stewards denied those entries on June 28.

That meet runs June 25 through July 10.

The stewards' decision was based on two CHRB rules, one for good cause and the second giving stewards' discretion over entries and declarations, wrote Marten.

“All entries and declarations are under the supervision of the stewards, and they may, without notice, refuse the entries of any person or the transfer of any entries, and they may also, in their discretion, limit entries by providing that no horse shall be listed for more than one race in any one day,” CHRB Rule 1580 states.

According to Marten, Baltas has appealed that decision by the stewards, with an appeal hearing not yet scheduled.

The TDN reached out to Baltas by text but did not receive a response before publication.

According to the original complaint, surveillance video at Santa Anita caught Baltas' employees allegedly administering the substance to the horses on the days they were entered to race.

In California, trainers face tight restrictions about what medications and supplements can be given to a horse within 48 and 24 hours of a race.

A subsequent analysis of the substance by the University of California, Davis, allegedly found the presence of higenamine and paenol, both of which are plant extracts.

According to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), Higenamine is a chemical found in a variety of plants, and can act as an anti-asthmatic to open up airways.

Higenamine is also becoming more commonly found in dietary supplements for human athletes, as per USADA's website.

A CHRB investigation was triggered on May 8, when the Baltas-trained Noble perfection was a late scratch from the 10th race at Santa Anita.

At the same time, 1/ST Racing, which operates Santa Anita, banned the trainer from running and working horses at 1/ST-owned facilities. On May 7, the Baltas-trained Speedcuber suffered a sesamoid injury, and was euthanized two-days later.

Baltas had no runners at Santa Anita between 1/ST's announcement and the end of the meet, on June 19.

The post Baltas Hearing Rescheduled, Entries Denied by Los Al Stewards appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HISA: Five Key Areas and Related Questions

Time is barreling onwards towards July 1, when the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) is scheduled to go into effect, and the pulse of the industry appears to be one of growing trepidation over what promises to be a sweeping reorder of its working mechanics.

That is hardly surprising, given the program still lacks a central enforcement agency, thanks to stalled talks towards the end of last year with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

What's more, in Lisa Lazarus, the board of directors has only just formally instated its chief executive officer. Lazarus started her tenure last week.

Under the crunch, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority–the non-profit umbrella established by HISA to broadly oversee the program–has taken mitigating steps by staggering implementation.

While the racetrack safety program prong of the law is set to begin July 1, the anti-doping and medication control (ADMC) rules aren't expected to go into effect until early 2023.

What does this mean for the industry, on the proviso that pending litigation doesn't further stall HISA's implementation? A quick answer is that there is no clear answer.

The TDN sent the Authority a series of detailed questions, receiving brief answers to several of them, but not all.

The following has been pieced together from those responses, from the latest version of the rules which can be found here, and from background conversations with individuals–including industry and state officials–familiar with the process.

Because of the current lack of specifics, the following is far from a comprehensive overview of where matters stand and is in large part a speculative exercise designed to prompt a dialogue on key parts of this federal bill.

1 – LAWSUITS

There are two main lawsuits seeking to strike HISA down.

The first suit, led by the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA), is joined by Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and West Virginia.

The suit takes aim at HISA's constitutionality on several grounds, including that in the Authority, HISA cedes governance to a private organization of unelected individuals, and that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) isn't granted the necessary regulatory autonomy as an oversight body.

The defendants–including HISA and the FTC–dispute this reading of the law and the constitution on various grounds, including that the plaintiffs have misinterpreted the legal precedents underpinning their arguments.

Oral arguments were heard Wednesday in a hearing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Given the July 1 deadline, legal experts say that Judge James Wesley Hendrix could make a ruling within weeks.

If he rules in the plaintiffs' favor, he could grant a stay on appeal, and the law could still go into effect July 1. However the judge rules, appeals are likely and will head to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The second suit, filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of Kentucky, is led by the state of Oklahoma, and is joined by several entities, including the states of Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Nebraska, Ohio and West Virginia.

Similar to the litigation led by the HBPA, this second lawsuit–filed in April of last year–questions HISA's constitutionality on various grounds, and argues that HISA's broad regulatory and taxation powers violate the Constitution's non-delegation doctrine.

The TDN understands that no hearing has yet been scheduled on this second lawsuit.

2 – COST

What is the deadline for figuring out overall cost?

According to the law, the Authority needs to alert individual states as to their estimated costs by Apr. 1. Individual states then have until May 2 to decide whether they want to remit their fees according to this calculation.

That calculation–recently posted on the federal register–is a little complicated. Essentially, the rules don't break costs down on a fee-per-start basis, but on a proportionate calculation which includes a state's overall purses:

“For example, if all starts in all races at all tracks were treated equally, West Virginia would have a larger proportionate share than Kentucky, even though the purses and entry fees generated by the Kentucky races dwarf those generated by West Virginia races. Instead, the Authority defined Annual Covered Racing Starts in a manner that is consistent with an equitable allocation of the funding needs of the Authority,” the posted rules state.

There are some important caveats. For one, no state's respective annual allocation shall exceed 10% of the total amount of purses in that state.

“All amounts in excess of the 10% maximum shall be allocated proportionally to all States that do not exceed the maximum, based on each State's respective percentage of the Annual Covered Racing Starts,” the posted rules state.

If a state chooses not to remit fees this first way, it'll still have to do so via separate monthly chunks determined by the Authority, and prefaced broadly on the following calculation:

Monthly starts

Total starts per year X Annual Calculation

Vital questions, therefore, appear to be these:

Q: When it comes to final numbers, does the calculation actually disproportionately impact the high purse states (like California, New York and Kentucky) as compared to the high-volume, low-purse racing jurisdictions (like the aforementioned West Virginia)?

Q: If the safety program goes into effect July 1 this year, and the ADMC program at the start of 2023, how does the Authority plan to distribute its available funds between those two very different six-month periods?

As a useful guide, the industry (minus New York) spent in 2019 a little more than $24 million on medication testing, according to a Jockey Club breakdown of those costs.

Q: And finally, what exactly will the funds be used for and how? Will they also be used, for example, to renumerate legal costs and any debts the Authority might have already accrued?

3 – ENFORCEMENT AGENCY

When USADA announced that it had stepped away from the negotiation table, they left the door ajar for reconciliation.

“Though we are unsure what the future holds for USADA–if any–in this effort, we have offered to assist the Authority and others in the industry to ensure that the sport gets the program it needs and that the horses deserve,” said USADA CEO, Travis Tygart, in his statement on the matter.

No further announcements have been made as to USADA's involvement, if any, in ongoing HISA enforcement agency talks. What other organizations could fit the bill?

The Authority declines to comment on what agencies have been approached, if any.

Could the Federation Equestre International (FEI)–the international governing body for equestrian sports–step into the breach, given new CEO Lazarus's pedigree as the agency's former general counsel, therefore? Or would the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF), which oversees equine sports on home soils, be a better fit?

Could another option–one admittedly fraught with possible conflict of interest issues–be that the eventual enforcement agency sub-contracts portions of the ADMC program to organizations with focused experience in a particular field?

Given how Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC)-accredited laboratories will still be used when the ADMC program goes into effect, could the Authority sub-contract out lab accreditation to the RMTC on a more permanent basis?

In that same vein, is there room for the Association of Racing Commissioners International (RCI) to assume a role? Could management of the nations' racetrack veterinarians fall to the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP)?

Given how inchoate the enforcement agency agenda is right now, specifics are light. Even so:

Q: What will the working relationship between the Authority and the enforcement agency specifically look like? Will they be a service agency, working primarily at the behest of the Authority, or a separate autonomous beast?

Q: Given USADA's emphasis on increased out-of-competition testing under HISA–typically a more expensive endeavour than post-race testing–how will the eventual enforcement agency approach that vital prong of the ADMC program, especially in the beginning when available funds will presumably be tight?

4 – ANTIDOPING AND MEDICATION CONTROL PROGRAM (ADMC)

During its time as an enforcement agency hopeful, USADA didn't sit idly by, putting together program materials, including a proposed results management process, a set of possible sanctions, and an outline of a binary approach to classifying substances, breaking them into primary and secondary substances.

According to the Authority, HISA owns the materials drafted by USADA, which are still posted on USADA's website.

When asked what components of USADA's ADMC program could be kept and what might be jettisoned, the Authority replied with the following:

“The draft ADMC documents developed with USADA provide a strong foundation that reflects significant input from the industry and other experts and this additional time has enabled us to collaborate further with industry stakeholders. Our goal is to build on the progress that has been made to-date with our future independent enforcement agency,” wrote a spokesperson for the Authority.

Ultimately, final say on the ADMC program will surely fall to the future enforcement agency.

While that position remains vacant, it's once again hard to nail down any specifics. Nevertheless, the following appear two important questions, among many.

Q: Will the enforcement agency maintain USADA's binary approach to regulated drugs, treating them all the same despite differences in potency? Or will it choose an alphanumeric system, like that outlined in the ARCI's model rules?

Q: Information management will be key to the enforcement agency's overall efficiency. And so, how far along is the creation of a centralized database capable of handling a vast amount of data?

5 – SAFETY PROGRAM

The public comment period for HISA's racetrack safety program closed on Jan. 19. Provided no drastic revisions occur, there are several key certainties come July 1.

Racetracks already accredited by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) will receive interim Racetrack Safety Accreditation, while non-NTRA accredited racetracks get provisional status. These designations survive at least until the safety committee completes a formal accreditation assessment.

This official accreditation assessment will encompass several areas, including the following:

Expanded veterinary oversight, both pre- and post-race
Void claim rule
Transfer of claimed horses' medical records
Surface maintenance and measurement standards
Enhanced reporting standards
Data reporting: medications, treatments, injuries and fatalities
Jockey concussions and medical care reporting

There's wriggle room written into the rules for those jurisdictions and tracks likely to struggle enacting various components of the accreditation program.

“If the accreditation assessment concludes that the applicable Racetrack has not reached full compliance with the accreditation regulations, the Committee may grant provisional accreditation for one year and may extend such provisional accreditation if the subject racetrack is undertaking good-faith efforts to comply with the accreditation requirements and achieve Accreditation,” the rules state.

They also allow jurisdictions to share individuals who fill the role of safety director, responsible for overseeing racetrack risk assessment and risk management, among other duties.

Key questions:

Q: When will the formal accreditation process start? In other words, how long do racetracks and jurisdictions have to get up to speed? And who exactly will conduct these assessments?

When it comes to the adjudication of offenses that fall under HISA's racetrack safety program, there are three broad categories, at least as originally proposed.

One:

The safety committee will seek to enter into voluntary agreements with individual jurisdictions to allow their existing state stewards to adjudicate a first set of rules pertaining to things like use of the whip, the carrying of illegal electronic devices, and the use of shockwave therapy devices.

If the Safety Committee doesn't enter into a voluntary agreement with a state, a separate set of stewards under HISA will adjudicate them instead.

Q: How far along is the Authority in entering into agreements with the individual states to allow their existing stewards to remain?

Two:

The second set of infractions concerns those that don't fall under HISA's wheelhouse, including dangerous riding and minor backstretch violations. These will continue to be adjudicated by stewards within each state.

Three:

According to background conversations the TDN conducted with safety committee officials at the end of last year, there is a third set of infractions which includes prohibited practices like the performing of chemical neurectomies (to desensitize the leg), pin firing and freeze firing.

When it comes to these violations, the racetrack safety committee will decide whether to:

1 – Send the case back to the state stewards

2 – Hear the matter themselves

3 – Refer the case to the independent arbitrators

4 – Or refer the case to the national stewards panel

Q: Given how the ADMC program is responsible for establishing a national panel of arbitrators and stewards, how will the staggered implementation of HISA impact the management of these offenses, if indeed this third prong of the adjudication process remains?

Stepping back to look at the looming implementation of HISA in its entirely, however, perhaps the most pertinent question for the industry isn't rooted in specificity but much more widely encompassing:

When will the Authority and its committees more freely open up lines of communication with stakeholders?

The post HISA: Five Key Areas and Related Questions appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

‘Broken Systems And Cronyism’: WHOA Advisory Board Says Horseracing Integrity And Safety Authority Will Flounder Without USADA

The Water Hay Oats Alliance (WHOA) is a grassroots movement of like-minded individuals who support the passage of federal legislation to prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the sport of horse racing. The appointment of an independent anti-doping program run by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) will resolve the problem of widespread drug use in American racing and put U.S. racing jurisdictions in step with international standards.

Doping destroys public confidence in racing, defrauds the betting fan, weakens the genetic pool, and, most importantly, puts the life and limb of our equine athletes and their jockeys at risk. It is obvious that after years of committee review and discussion, America's racing industry cannot police itself by eliminating the proliferation of performance-enhancing drugs in our sport, nor does it possess the power to adequately punish the purveyors of these drugs.

It was the summer of 2012…
Our original team of supporters had just returned from a trip to Washington, D.C., lobbying for drug and medication reform in U.S. racing. The legislation then was entitled The Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act of 2011 sponsored by Congressman Ed Whitfield (R-KY). It called to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (IHA). After that trip, it was obvious that the racing industry would never support those measures, so we began discussions with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to help address the intractable issue of doping in racing.

We decided that our individual voices would make a greater impact if we banded together under one umbrella, with one voice. It was crystal clear that our goal would be to find a way to put USADA in a place of independent management and oversight.

That was the beginning of the Water Hay Oats Alliance (WHOA). Over time, owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys, and industry professionals joined our ranks. We included racing fans and handicappers, partners in our sport. We included members of all racing disciplines: Thoroughbred, Standardbred, and Quarter Horse racing.

Since that time, USADA has played an integral role as a valued partner in efforts to pass the industry-shifting reform legislation that created HISA. USADA chief executive officer Travis Tygart and his team have shared their time and expertise, often at their own expense, educating countless individuals and racing industry groups about the importance of clean sport and what USADA's gold standard program could do to better racing.

Today, WHOA has grown from that handful of advocates to over 2,000 industry stakeholders: over 850 owners and breeders, 950 industry professionals, and a host of racing fans and handicappers.

Since that original bill, there have been five variations of legislation to address doping in horse racing. With each variation, WHOA's simple mission statement stood the test. As long as the legislation met our mission with the placement of USADA, WHOA supported it.

When the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act was passed in December 2020, we all celebrated. Our mission was complete. The legislation named USADA, an independent third party, as the entity to serve as “the anti-doping and medication control enforcement agency.”

But, not so fast…
In late December, negotiations between HISA and USADA stalled. The legislative compromise that WHOA supported – to put USADA in their rightful place with a five-year contract – has been aborted. HISA is looking for other options and interviewing other entities to fill USADA's place.

“What a shame. What a travesty. What are the insurmountable issues that would preclude a fivc-year contract between USADA and HISA?” asked international owner and breeder George Strawbridge.

“I was so disappointed to see the breakdown of talks between HISA and USADA. There is no other agency that will handle testing as thoroughly as USADA, we need to get them back to the table so they can clean up our sport.” said leading Classic trainer Graham Motion.

Michael Engleman, a horseman, and former international cyclist, lamented, “Like so many others across the world, I was extremely disappointed to read the news of HISA suspending talks with USADA. The reality is that for U.S. racing there is no legitimate and globally respected alternative to USADA. Anything less than USADA just shows that we are not serious about making honest and real change for what is best for racing, the racing fans and the horses we all love.”

Members of WHOA have reached out to both parties asking for an explanation of the stalemate and offering to help bridge the gap. To date, no light has been shed on the subject. The industry deserves to know what the issues are that caused the impasse. “Don't live in the problem, live in the solution.” In this case, without understanding the problem, we can't help find a solution.

WHOA's support of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act hinged on the fact that currently there is no other “entity that is nationally recognized as being a medication regulation agency equal in qualification to the United States Anti-Doping Agency.” We challenge HISA to find another agency that meets USADA's program criteria. THERE IS NONE.

“We need USADA now. Time is of the essence to put an end to doping in racing.” said Triple Crown winning jockey Steve Cauthen.

Members of WHOA do not feel that HISA has the expertise or luxury of time to build or piecemeal together an entity that would come close to doing what USADA does so well. It is a well-oiled machine. There is a level of trust that USADA stands its ground for what is right. It will not be swayed by outside parties. It is truly independent.

Owner, breeder Bill Casner believes that “without the years of expertise that USADA provides, HISA would basically be trying to reinvent the wheel. It will be floundering, trying to deal with the sophistication of the cheaters. We have to get USADA on board.”

WHOA will continue to endorse the independent turn-key program USADA brings to the table. Their scientists are respected at the highest levels. USADA's drug testing capabilities exceed that of any other agency in the field. They have been involved in drug testing, results management, and adjudication longer and at a higher level than any other organization. USADA utilizes advancing sciences to look for new performance-enhancing drugs to stay ahead of the cheater and uses data analysis to catch them and provide a fair process. USADA is a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), giving it access to the best global anti-doping practices and science.

“USADA's knowledge of drug testing exceeds that of any other agency in the field. They have been involved in drug testing longer and at a higher level than any other agency. There is a major difference between testing at the Olympic level than the NFL, for example.” said Barry Irwin of Team Valor.

“USADA has been at the heart of WHOA's efforts from the beginning. We all appreciate that changing a culture and a system will be challenging and expensive. But desperate times call for desperate measures.” said Staci Hancock, WHOA's managing member. “Racing's reputation and future depend on bold changes for the betterment of our sport and the health and well-being of our horses. USADA can give us that, putting an end to business as usual with broken systems and cronyism. We can't afford anything less.”

“I don't think the horse industry realizes the plight it is in, and it desperately needs the integrity of USADA to help shore up its sad reputation. Cheaters are still cheating, horses are still dying, and public perception is still worsening,” added Arthur Hancock of Stone Farm.

Source of original post

The Week in Review: USADA-HISA Must Settle Their Differences

The announcement that came last week that the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has bowed out and will not become the enforcement agency for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority couldn't have been worse news for the sport. It was a lump of coal in the stocking at Christmastime. Thanks to the passage of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) racing finally seemed ready to clean up a game where cheating trainers and the use of performance-enhancing drugs is a serious problem. USADA was not only the best choice to take over the policing of the sport. It was the only choice. There is no one else.

With USADA's announcement, HISA is in shambles and picking up the pieces will be a daunting, if not impossible, task. USADA's involvement was the reason so many people were so enthusiastic about HISA's passage. USADA and its CEO Travis Tygart are the gold standard when it comes to anti-doping and they get results. Just ask Lance Armstrong. While it's true that HISA covers other areas and issues, none seem that important at the moment. This was always about bringing in USADA and letting them accomplish what the sport is incapable of doing on its own.

Now what?

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, the group overseeing the implementation of HISA, said, in a press release last week, that it is evaluating options for engagement with other leading independent enforcement agencies. I suppose that's what they had to say, but the statement does not address the realities of the predicament they are in. The statement indicates they will simply move on to Plan B. Except there is no Plan B, no alternative to USADA. And if they somehow do come up with another agency to handle drug testing and enforcement, it's not going to be an entity that has anywhere near the bona fides that USADA does.

There's only one way to solve this mess, and that's a reconciliation between USADA and the Authority.

In their respective press releases, neither USDA nor the Authority gave any indication as to what exactly was the problem that caused a divorce before the two were officially married.

“After months of negotiations, we have been unable to enter an agreement in line with the requirements of the Act, and one which would have given us a reasonable chance to put in place a credible and effective program,” Tygart said in USADA's statement, not exactly answering any of the questions so many now have.

The most likely reasons USADA and the Authority could not come to terms?

It could be about money. It was never going to be cheap to have USADA come in and provide the manpower and expertise needed to police an entire sport, one that has far more competitors and moving parts than even the Olympics. And it was never made clear where the money to pay for USADA was supposed to come from. Tygart might have asked for more than the Authority was willing to pay.

There may have also been a disagreement regarding rules and regulations, what USADA could and could not do. It's easy to see Tygart walking away if there were roadblocks put in his way that he could not accept.

Or it could be something else.

Whatever the reason may have been, Authority Chairman Charles Scheeler and his crew and Tygart and his team need to lock themselves in a room with the understanding that no one can come out until they have reached an agreement that will bring USADA back into the fold. That may mean that it will be the Authority that has to blink first, that it will have to find a way to give Taggart whatever it is that he is looking for. Horse racing needs USADA a lot more than USADA needs racing.

Maybe the relationship between the two is beyond repair and nothing can be done to salvage it, but racing has to try. The alternative is that everything goes back to the status quo and that, without USADA, the bad guys continue to run amok. HISA, without USADA's involvement, becomes so irrelevant that the act might as well be repealed. That depressing possibility should be considered unacceptable by the Authority, The Jockey Club and everyone else who has been trying so hard to bring meaningful change to a sport that needs just that.

There has to be a way. Make it happen.

The post The Week in Review: USADA-HISA Must Settle Their Differences appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post