One Step Forward - by Eric Mitchell

aspradling — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:49:00 GMT

(Originally published in the September 8, 2012 issue of The Blood-Horse magazine. Feel free to share your own thoughts and opinions at the bottom of the column.)

By Eric Mitchell - @BH_EMitchell on Twitter

Too often conducting the people’s work results in sneaky business.

We saw an example of this Aug. 27 when the Interim Joint Committee of Licensing and Occupations, a Kentucky legislative subcommittee, discussed and voted down nine regulation amendments that had been endorsed by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. These amendments had not been included in the committee’s agenda. The vote was a blind side orchestrated by the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, which reportedly lobbied lawmakers during the previous weekend to push for a vote. Of the 20 legislators present for the meeting, all but one, Republican Sen. Damon Thayer, voted to find the regulations “deficient.”

The goal, according to Kentucky HBPA president Rick Hiles, was to derail further progress on a proposed ban of race-day furosemide (also known as either Salix or Lasix) use in graded and listed stakes within the state, which would be phased in over a three-year period beginning Jan. 1, 2014 (see The Blood-Horse, June 23, page 1755). The problem, however, is that none of the proposed regulations the committee voted on affected the ban.

What was on the table was a package of amendment changes that had been recommended by the Kentucky Equine Drug Research Council. They included a requirement that only state vets be allowed to give furosemide on race day, prohibited the use of adjunct bleeder medications (which are of questionable effectiveness anyway), and lowered the allowable threshold of phenylbutazone from 5 micrograms/milliliter to 2 µg/ml (most horses racing in Kentucky test at or below the 2 µg/ml already). The changes had been discussed for more than a year in more than 10 public meetings, had been unanimously approved by all relevant KHRC committees, and then were endorsed unanimously by the racing commission.

The subcommittee in its rush to action found the new regulations deficient but didn’t say why and didn’t table the vote until the problem areas could be clarified. Instead, the committee just voted them down one week before they were to take effect.

Fortunately, Gov. Steve Beshear acted quickly and overrode the committee’s vote Aug. 30—putting into effect regulatory changes a majority of the racing industry endorsed (see page 2490).

If the Kentucky HBPA was out to make a statement, it certainly achieved its goal, but it wasn’t the statement it probably hoped to make. The association now looks like a blatant obstructionist rather than an industry partner trying to shape the best outcome for the horse and the sport as the state wrestles with reform.

...Two Steps Back

Clearly politics continues to stymie efforts to give Illinois racetracks the authority to operate slot machines.

Gov. Pat Quinn recently vetoed the latest legislation that would have allowed five new casinos—including a resort-type casino in downtown Chicago—and slots at the racetracks. The issue, according to the governor, is a lack of oversight for the Chicago casino. Apparently the Illinois Gaming Board wouldn't have the same regulatory authority over the Chicago casino as it does all other casinos. We’re not sure how it’s possible that casinos within a state can operate under different regulations. Even Thoroughbred racing has uniform rules within a state’s boundaries.

Something else is at play here. Quinn had the option of amending the legislation and adding the tougher ethical standards he sees as essential, but he didn’t. Legislators have offered follow-up legislation, if the initial law was signed, but Quinn rejected those too saying he would rather get all the legislation signed at once.

Quinn also added that more money from the expanded gambling initiative needs to go to public education. Ah, maybe this is the true sticking point.

Between the ever-shifting political landscape in Illinois and the startling wake-up call issued by the Ontario provincial government, which is ready to shut down most racetrack casinos, we can’t think of a clearer message that racing's future won't be bright if it is tethered to casinos. The long-term solution is for racing to build up and sell its own product.

Integrity We Can Believe In By Eric Mitchell

aspradling — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:13:00 GMT

(Originally published in the February 12, 2011 issue of The Blood-Horse magazine. Feel free to share your own thoughts and opinions at the bottom of the column.)

By Eric Mitchell - @EJMitchellKy on Twitter

[Santa Anita Park was accredited with the Oak Tree Racing Association in 2009. An earlier version of this post stated otherwise.]

The aftermath of the Life At Ten debacle during the Breeders’ Cup World Championships Nov. 5 stretches into week 15 without resolution.

While it is certainly admirable the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission is leaving no stone unturned (89 interviews conducted), the longer this travesty goes without answers or action, the worse it looks for all involved—Kentucky, the Breeders’ Cup, and the National Thoroughbred Racing Association.

In summary, Life At Ten was the 7-2 second-choice in the Breeders’ Cup Ladies’ Classic (gr. I). While in the saddling paddock, it became apparent to trainer Todd Pletcher and others in the vicinity that the multiple grade I winner was not herself. She was described as sluggish. In the past the mare had been a little slow to warm up, so Pletcher sent jockey John Velazquez out to the track to see if she would show more energy. During a pre-race interview on ESPN with analyst and former jockey Jerry Bailey, Velazquez told a national audience the mare was not right. Velazquez apparently said nothing to the veterinarians stationed around the track and the starting gate. A television producer, however, did alert the stewards to what Velazquez told Bailey.

Still, Life At Ten was loaded into the gate, started without any sense of urgency or energy, and was not persevered with for the remainder of the Ladies’ Classic. After the race Pletcher suggested she may have had an adverse reaction to Salix, an anti-bleeder medication. No blood or urine samples were taken after the race because the testing barn was full and it would have been unsafe to put her in the already crowded barn, according to chief steward John Veitch.

One misstep after the other.

Another disturbing layer added to this mess is that Churchill Downs, host of the 2010 Breeders’ Cup, is accredited through the NTRA’s Safety and Integrity Alliance. The purpose of the alliance is to establish standards and practices that promote the safety and integrity of Thoroughbred racing. These standards include injury reporting and prevention through programs such as pre-race veterinary inspections, medication and testing, jockey safety and health standards, aftercare for retired racehorses, and wagering security. These are admirable programs, and we must strive to implement uniform standards at all racetracks.

But how does the Life At Ten episode reflect on the effectiveness of this program? Churchill Downs spent tens of thousands of dollars on the accreditation process, made changes and upgrades, and went through an inspection of all its facilities and processes. And still, a horse unfit to race was allowed to start on racing’s championship day.

“It is very troubling, but we think the situation underscores the need for the alliance,” said NTRA president Alex Waldrop.

Interest in the voluntary accreditation has been sluggish. Only 19 of about 65 racetracks have signed on in two years—14 in 2009 and five in 2010. The alliance’s independent monitor, former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, recently reiterated his disappointment and even suggested the American Graded Stakes Committee, which is run by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, consider withholding graded status from races run at unaccredited tracks. That’s an interesting and probably ineffective bit of coercion, even if the AGSC agreed to it. And its members didn’t.

Does anyone in the industry have the stomach or the legal authority to take the graded stakes away from Oaklawn or Gulfstream Park, which are not accredited? Are we willing to let our historically premier races go ungraded or moved to another track? Or, what if it is revealed in the Life At Ten mess that Churchill Downs violated some condition of its accreditation? Would the Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands or Kentucky Oaks (both gr. I) lose their graded status? We all know the answer is no.

The NTRA admits it needs to do a better job selling the alliance to the public, but more importantly it first needs to sell the alliance to the industry. The first step might be to show the racetracks accreditation means something and has direct benefits—that adopting uniform standards on safety and integrity could help restore confidence in Thoroughbred racing. More confidence means more owner participation, higher handle from gamblers, and higher TV ratings (when races are on TV, but that’s another column) from fans.

Life At Ten put us at this crossroads. The end result of the investigation must be meaningful and substantive, or the integrity of the alliance could be lost.

What's Going On Here : kentucky horse racing commission

One Step Forward - by Eric Mitchell

Integrity We Can Believe In By Eric Mitchell