Views Differ on Progress in Medication Reform

Blood-Horse

Is the current push for federal legislation to authorize equine medication oversight in Thoroughbred racing really just about banning race-day anti-bleeding medication?

Will the agreed-upon federal bill be rewritten to include Standardbred and Quarter Horse racing—even if they don’t want to be part of it?

Would oversight by the United States Anti-Doping Agency of medication policies, testing, and enforcement solve what some call the real problem: finding illicit drugs that may be used in racehorses?

Why isn’t the racing industry investing more on what it calls “boots on the ground” to step up investigations and security to catch cheaters?

Answers to those questions vary, but the issues at least were hashed out when the two-day Saratoga Institute on Racing, Equine, and Gaming Law conference began the morning of Aug. 11 in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The first panel was appropriately titled, “Drug Use on the Racetrack: Are We Spinning Our Hooves.”

Amanda Simmons Luby, an attorney with Shutts and Bowen, said there are two important questions that must be answered in the pro-con of federal legislation: Is it in the best interest of horse and rider, and in the best interest in the integrity of the game?

She said she is a “strong proponent” of federal legislation but believes the language in two versions needs work. For instance, she said the industry’s preferred bill—the Thoroughbred Horseracing Integrity Act of 2015—doesn’t go far enough to explicitly ban performance-enhancing drugs. She also noted other breeds of racehorses aren’t included in the bill.

“We need to be clear in our objectives,” Luby said. “I think there has been a lot of progress, and the (Racing Medication Testing Consortium) needs to continue working on that. We all need to work toward the goal of international standards.”

Alan Foreman, chairman of the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association who spearheaded adoption of the National Uniform Medication Program in the Mid-Atlantic region, said “international standards” equates to a ban on race-day furosemide, also called Lasix or Salix, because other countries don’t allow its use. He claimed that is the primary objective of the federal effort.

“Any group can go to Congress and get a bill introduced,” Foreman said. “There is an active group seeking federal legislation because it can’t accomplish what it wants to accomplish. When you look at this piece of legislation it has one purpose: eliminating Lasix, and now they are equating that with doping racehorses.

“The problem is they’re not being honest enough to tell you the real purpose of these bills.”

Foreman outlined state-by-state adoption of the National Uniform Medication Program and said the progress is unprecedented in an often-divided industry.

Attorney Joseph Faraldo of the Standardbred Breeders Association of New York credited the work that has been done on uniformity in racing but said the industry isn’t addressing the primary problem, whether or not there is federal legislation.

“The problem is you won’t find in the scientific world what is being used in racehorses because we don’t know what it is. You won’t find it,” Faraldo said. “How many years did Lance Armstrong get away with what he got away with? It wasn’t a result of science. You need boots on the ground to tell you what so-and-so is using.”

The federal legislation as proposed would levy fees in each racing jurisdiction to pay for a USADA testing and enforcement program. There is no mention of helping state regulators beef up their investigatory and security staffs, something regulators believe is a major need in the industry today.