California Horse Racing Board decision poses danger to all trainers

The racing industry has been taking a long look at ways to improve safety for horses and riders. In an attempt to reduce injuries, racing associations have spent millions of dollars on synthetic surfaces. Additional millions have been spent at UC Davis reviewing and analyzing injuries.But the search for safety may now have gone too far and it may be turning into a witch hunt. During the past few months, the CHRB has accused three trainers of violating CHRB regulation 1902.5:

Edward I. Halpern, CTT Exec (
08 April 2009 - Issue number 12)

News from North California - Saving Bay Meadows

The appeal by the “Save Bay Meadows” Committee was heard before the 1st District Court of Appeals on September 19. By all accounts, a decision is due by the Court before the end of the calendar year of 2007.

If successful, the citizens group will push that the Bay Meadows development be put to a vote by San Mateo residents as to whether they want the proposed project to move forward. If the appeal is denied, it basically ends any hope that Bay Meadows will not be developed in the near future. It seems almost certain that Bay Meadows Land Company would start their project in the fall of 2008.
 
After months of meetings and industry input, the CHRB awarded 2008 race dates for Northern California. In what seems to a certainty, Bay Meadows will hold its final thoroughbred race meet from February 6 through May 11. In addition, the San Mateo Fair will race from August 6-8. The CTT worked hard to get Bay Meadows to agree to stay open for stabling and training in the fall of 2008. There is a real possibility that construction could commence shortly after the finish of the San Mateo Fair. Bay Meadows management has agreed to work with the CTT in establishing training hours that will work to ensure the safety of both horse and human during any possible construction times.
 
The new Tapeta racing surface that was installed at Golden Gate Fields is being embraced by the trainers thus far. The first horse set foot on the surface on October 5. In fact, a horse even worked a half mile that first morning! The trainers seem to be extremely pleased and encouraged that the surface is kinder and safer for their horses. Michael Dickinson, the creator of Tapeta, has told trainers that his goal is to reduce the amount of injuries by 50 percent. Now, that is a worthy goal!
 
Golden Gate Fields management was clearly thrilled with the first three days of entries taken as they awaited the first race run on the Tapeta surface. The number of horses entered for the first 3 days averaged 8.5 per race in comparison to the average field size in Northern California this year of 6.9. The first race run on the surface was on opening day of the Golden Gate fall meet, and a flat mile race was clocked in a very respectable 1:38:1.
 
The fair circuit was finished for the year with the running of the Fresno Fair in early October. The management of the Fresno fair should be thanked as they spent considerable funds to install rubber bricks throughout the paddock area. The Stockton Fair has announced that they are in the process of securing funds to install a new turf course at their facility. If all plans go accordingly, the first turf race will be run at Stockton during their Fair of 2009.
 
Pleasanton is aggressively seeking funding to install a synthetic surface. Once Bay Meadows closes, the CTT is very hopeful that this facility will become the second barn area (besides GGF) in the Bay Area to accommodate the stabling needs for our horses. If all goes well, Pleasanton will have installed a new surface by the end of the fall of 2008. Good luck to them…

Charles E. Dougherty, Jr. CTT Deputy Director (First Published: 01 Dec 2007)

Northern California Report

As the summer fair racing circuit of 2007 starts to wind down, the anxiety as to what Northern California’s overall racing circuit will look like starts to grow. By all indications, Bay Meadows will not race after 2008.

While many horsemen held out hope that Bay Meadows would be spared of their development plans and continue to race, that scenario looks less likely each day. In fact, the Bay Meadows Land Company (BMLC) is telling the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) that they would only like to race until July of 2008. It is very disappointing that BMLC has taken this position, as they made such an issue of not originally being granted an exemption for the synthetic surface mandate. The CHRB granted the waiver, with BMLC now saying they can’t race past the summer months. Go figure! The CTT is very involved in negotiations in trying to get Bay Meadows to commit to a stabling program through the fall if they do not race after July of 2008.
 
There will be plenty of discussion surrounding the experiment of Vallejo and Santa Rosa running a combined meet this summer. Unfortunately, the handle figures did not increase, but rather decreased from previous years. Many on the circuit felt figures may have been different if Santa Rosa ran the first week of its meet without the carnival and then finished with its traditional fair meet the last two weeks. I’m sure that will be considered for next year.
 
After weeks of waiting for the City of Albany’s approval, the installation of the Tapeta racing surface at Golden Gate Fields (GGF) finally started on July 22. Horses were moved out to Vallejo, Pleasanton, and Bay Meadows during the construction time. The GGF management has set a tentative October 12 date as to when the horses can move back into the barn area. Besides the new racing surface, GGF is spending approximately $1 million to refurbish and paint all the stalls in the barn area. The areas between all the barns have been leveled off to improve drainage as well. In addition, the CTT is working closely with GGF to renovate its recreation hall for our backstretch workers.

Charles E. Dougherty, Jr. CTT Deputy Director
 (01 October 2007 )

THE FUTURE OF RACING IN CALIFORNIA - A NEW SAGA

California is racing into the future, or maybe not. As of writing, there is turmoil and uncertainty as to how racing will develop in the immediate future. A long-term prognosis is even more uncertain. The California Legislature has placed a stranglehold on funding for the California Horse Racing Board.

The confirmation of one CHRB Commissioner is being threatened, while three other Commissioners are considering resigning in protest. In Northern California, Bay Meadows racetrack is refusing to commit to racing but refusing to provide information on when they will quit racing. Similarly in Southern California, Hollywood Park racetrack continues to operate, but has let it be known that the guillotine is poised to drop. The picture is confused, and the confusion is complicated because of a prior mandate that all tracks racing more than four consecutive weeks install synthetic surfaces before 2008.

Whether or not this all gets straightened out in the near future, and I suspect it will, it makes a fascinating story about racing, money, land speculation, personalities, and politics. The underlying theme of all this is the use of vast amounts of pension fund cash to purchase assets that are valuable for both their land value and their speculative value. The properties in question are possible beneficiaries of “mitigation funds” that may come from California Indian tribes. Stockbridge Capital, the owner of both Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows, invested pension fund money to buy what it saw as undervalued real estate. The plan was to close the tracks and reap the rewards of putting the land to its best use. Somewhere along the way the investor discovered there was a way to make a fortune in easy money while still holding the land for its continuing appreciation. A circumstance like this one is probably the derivation of the expression, “have your cake and eat it, too.”

THE REAL ESTATE ANGLE: 

The law requires that Indian tribes pay “mitigation” to industries affected because of decreases in revenue due to Indian gaming. Horse racing is clearly one of those industries. Stockbridge claims it is entitled to $25 million per year for each property it owns. That amount, in addition to what they can make off of racing, makes it worth while for them to keep their properties as racetracks. It’s a nice situation to be in, $50 million a year, with no work and no expenditure of effort. The Indian tribes aren’t falling for the deal. The days of buying Manhattan for beads are long gone. At a recent convention of Indian Gaming Tribes, the mere mention of the word “mitigation” brought an angry reaction from the crowd. “No mitigation, hell no, no mitigation” was the response. With the exception of the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association, every other segment of the industry recognizes the pie-in-the-sky nature of the demands of Stockbridge.

THE POLITICS: 

The Commissioners of the California Horse Racing Board are caught in a trap. They mandated installation of synthetic surfaces and Bay Meadows wants permission to race for some unspecified period without installing the surface. Golden Gate Fields planned to have a synthetic surface in this summer. Golden Gate management believed it deserved extra dates for meeting the mandate, and the majority of CHRB Board members believe they ought to have those extra dates if they comply with the mandate and have a safer surface. When Bay Meadows asked to be allowed to run for two years without a synthetic surface, the CHRB Board members said “no.” Terry Fancher, who is the Managing Partner of Stockbridge Capital Group, has spent what he calls a fortune for political contributions in Sacramento trying to “help racing.” One must assume he has, therefore, been able to make friends in the Legislature. Along comes State Senator Leland Yee, who represents the district in which Bay Meadows is located.  He attacks the CHRB members who voted to deny Bay Meadows the right to run without a synthetic surface. He introduces SR 14,  a resolution calling for the State Senate to ask for the resignation of CHRB Chairman Richard Shapiro. He also threatens to derail the confirmation of Commissioner John Amerman.  And the most recent twist architected by Senator Yee was to have the CHRB budget zeroed out, which could lead to the cessation of racing throughout the State. This story has the aura of the 1971 Roman Polanski film, “Chinatown.”  Racing is in the middle of a real life screenplay.

In reality, all Richard Shapiro has done is to be the most effective and constructive leader of the CHRB in the past two decades. He has made his chairmanship a full-time job, without remuneration. He has been the activist the industry has long needed. And he has worked tirelessly for the benefit of horsemen, for the control of drugs and medication, and for the safety of horses. Commissioner Amerman has improved the Board by bringing his wisdom, long-time knowledge of the industry, experience, and success to the table and supported the same programs as Commissioner Shapiro.

Senator Yee has a different agenda. He wants to use his political power to keep racing alive at Bay Meadows. Apparently, he doesn’t care about the fact that the ownership of Bay Meadows won’t make any commitment or agreement to race. He doesn’t care about the fact that the Bay Meadows management is willing to leave horsemen without any ability to plan for the future or to create alternative racing sites. And he certainly doesn’t care about the safety of the horses and the riders.  He says he wants to prevent people from losing their jobs. There will be no lost jobs. The jobs will move to the new venues. He just wants to keep them in San Mateo for a short period of time at the expense of the entire racing industry.

No doubt all this political posturing will pass and it may well have passed by the time this magazine reaches the reader.  One suspects that common sense will outpace political decadence. Sacramento politics often seems to encourage people to start with the most outrageous position one can take and back-off throughout the political process. None the less, the Leland Yee anti-CHRB campaign makes a juicy story. Unfortunately, it leaves a lot of wasted energy and anxiety in its wake. Senator Yee is either naively listening to a string of misinformation or is exhibiting callous disregard for the welfare of the 40,000 to 50,000 thousand people whose families are supported by the racing industry. One wonders how his sole purpose could be to get a few more days of racing at Bay Meadows in 2008.

Horsemen can be assured of one thing. The industry has put together contingency plans. Should Bay Meadows fail to race in 2008, the racetrack at Pleasanton is ready to step in and fill the void probably with a new synthetic surface, an expanded barn area, and improved fan facilities. The fairs are willing to realign their schedules to improve the quality of summer racing. The proposed schedule also includes a continuing series of turf racing opportunities. That is a first for Northern California and would be a considerable improvement over the current situation. It may just turn out that the death of Bay Meadows breathes new life into what has been a slow lingering decline in Northern California racing. If readers want to express any thoughts on this issue, a good place to start would be with a letter to Senator Leland Yee at State Capitol, Room 4048, Sacramento, CA 95814.  His telephone number is (916) 651-4008.  A copy should go to Senator Don Perata, State Capitol, Room 205, Sacramento, CA 95814.  (916) 651-4009.

Edward I. Halpern, CTT Exec - (01 July 2007 - Issue Number: 4)

Flunixin and Clenbuterol - changes in the CHRB rules

Two important amendments to CHRB rule 1844 became effective on October 20, 2007. The flunixin regulatory threshold was raised to 50ng/ml in blood form the previous 20ng/ml. This should have little impact in the day-to-day operation of most stables.

 A standard 500mg (10cc) IV dose at 24 hours seldom exceeds 20ng/ml in the average horse. The 50ng/ml level was established from administration studies with flunixin administered to 28 horses; all but a handful were thoroughbreds in race training at the track. The laboratory analysis was done by Dr. Scott D. Stanley at UC Davis and Dr. Rick Sams at Ohio State University. The results were statistically analyzed, and a flunixin level above 40ng/ml can be shown to be so improbable as to be unrealistic. The regulatory level was rounded up to 50ng/ml for California for simplicity and to add an additional margin of safety.
 
The second amendment to rule 1844 involves clenbuterol. The rule change gives the CHRB the ability to regulate clenbuterol in the blood as well as urine. The new regulation adds a 25 picograms/ml in blood threshold to the 5ng/ml threshold in urine. If either exceeds the threshold limit, there is a violation. This can have an impact on any trainer administering clenbuterol within 72 hours of race time. Administration of clenbuterol up to 72 hours at 5cc twice a day to the average-sized horse will not result in a violation in blood. We estimate between one-third to one-half of horses are at risk of exceeding 25 picograms/ml in blood from an administration at 48 hours and nearly 100% within 48 hours will results in a violation.  This is very different from the current clenbuterol level of 5ng/ml in urine, where a single dose within 48 hours could pass the post-race urine. That will no longer be the case.
 
Cobra Venom
 
All trainers should be familiar with CHRB rule 1867. The rule has been on the books for over 10 years and addresses prohibited practices. The rule specifically bans the possession of snake venom at CHRB facilities. The Kentucky equivalent to our rule was the basis for Patrick Biancone’s recent suspension. Biancone was suspended even though the cobra venom was found in a container marked as belonging to Biancone’s veterinarian, Dr. Stewart. Dr. Stewart’s container with the cobra venom was stored in a refrigerator in a tack room assigned to Biancone’s Kentucky stable. Biancone denied knowledge of the cobra venom, but was held responsible as it was found in his barn. Cobra venom has been used in the past by a number of trainers and veterinarians. Regardless, and so there is no question, California will be just as aggressive as Kentucky  in prosecuting any licensee found in possession of cobra venom or any other prohibited drug under rule 1867.  In addition to snake venom, erythropoietin (EPO) and darbepoietin (darb-EPO) are specifically identified in the rule.
 
In a somewhat related matter, the same Dr. Stewart from the Biancone cobra venom situation has a case pending in California for improper labeling of medications and practicing veterinary medicine at a CHRB facility without a CHRB license. This involves medication allegedly sent to California by Dr. Stewart related to Biancone’s salmeterol positive from January. Mr. Biancone was fined $10,000 and given a 15-day, stayed suspension, even though salmeterol is a Class III violation. Neither salmeterol administration nor salmeterol dispensing had been reported to the CHRB by his California veterinarians. Dr. Stewart is currently under suspension in California; his California case will be heard after the resolution of his Kentucky problems.
 
Law Change for Hearings of Class I, II, & III Violations
 
Governor Schwarzenegger has signed AB1616, which will change the way Class I, II, & III violations are adjudicated; the law is effective in January, 2008. The new law puts the hearing process back in the hands of the CHRB. For the last 8 years, a licensee could elect to go directly to the Office of Administrative Hearing (OAH) and bypass the CHRB with Class I, II, & III violations. OAH, especially in Southern California, often has a large backlog of cases and setting hearing dates has been problematic. Several CHRB cases have taken a year to get to hearing from the date of the violation. Both the CHRB and the licensee were forced into an expensive and slow process where no one benefits but the attorneys. Under 1616, there is an option of the hearing going before the stewards or an independent hearing officer. The CHRB envisions the hearings to take place at or near our racetracks to facilitate the process.  The goal is for the hearings to be scheduled, heard, and resolved much more quickly than is currently accomplished through OAH. 
 
Split Sample Procedures
 
A number of trainers have lost their opportunity to have their split samples tested under rule 1859.25 by not adhering to the deadlines expressly specified within the rule. Trainers need to take the deadlines in rule 1859.25 seriously if they intend to pursue a split sample analysis. There are two deadlines that must be met: The first is notifying the CHRB whether or not the owner or trainer wants a split sample analyzed. This must be done within 72 hours of the owner or trainer being notified of an adverse finding in the official sample. This is best done by notifying the Split Sample Custodian at the CHRB’s Sacramento office. That telephone number is 916-263-6050; the fax number is 916-263-6051. The notification needs to be accompanied by form CHRB-56 (Request to Release Evidence) and a check for $35 for handling and shipping expenses. The second deadline is completing arrangements with the split sample laboratory. There are nine (9) CHRB approved split sample laboratories. After the CHRB receives notification, the owner or trainer has five (5) days to finalize all arrangements with their chosen split sample laboratory. Each lab has somewhat different requirements to complete the process. This includes payment and any paperwork required by the laboratory. This is the licensee’s responsibility; it is not the CHRB’s.
 
The calculation of the deadlines gives the trainer more than adequate time to complete the process. The 72-hour (3-day) deadline to notify the CHRB of your decision to have a split sample analyzed begins the first working day after the licensee has been notified of the adverse finding and ends at the close of business on the third working day. For example, if you are notified on a Wednesday, the following Thursday, Friday, and Monday will constitute the 72 hours. If the CHRB has not been notified at the end of the workday on Monday, the licensee has missed the deadline. Similarly, with the above example and assuming the CHRB was notified on the Monday, the owner or trainer would have until the end of the following Monday to complete all arrangements with the chosen split sample laboratory. In the above example, the trainer would have 12 calendar days. This is more than enough time with any serious effort to meet the regulatory deadlines of 1859.25.
 
The Split Sample Custodian is willing to answer questions, but will not make the arrangements for you. The list of the nine (9) CHRB approved split sample laboratories is available through the Split Sample Custodian or the CHRB investigator handling the case. Keep in mind, most split sample labs are in earlier time zones than California. In addition, even though a lab is on the approved split sample laboratory list, it does not mean the laboratory can or will accept your sample. All racing laboratories experience workload constraints from time to time. This is especially true in the summer. In addition, the CHRB split sample laboratory contract requires that the lab can only accept a sample if they have the procedures and capability to confirm the target drug or medication at or below the level reported by the CHRB’s official laboratory. If they do not have that capability, they must decline the sample.
 
 
One other issue causes some confusion. The split sample is the property of the CHRB; it is not the property of the owner or trainer. In addition, the CHRB is the recipient of all reports generated by the split sample laboratory on any sample sent from the CHRB. Who pays for the analysis does not alter this. The owner or trainer requesting the split sample analysis will receive copies of all documents generated by the split sample lab. Nothing is hidden. Please be aware some labs will have additional charges for any report or documentation beyond the standard one- or two-page report confirming or not confirming the finding. The cost for any additional documentation or paperwork is the responsibility of the licensee. There may be additional charges for quantitative testing; quantitative testing provides drug levels. Depending on the drug, some quantitative testing is not important for the CHRB to proceed with a case, but may be important as a mitigating factor for the licensee during the subsequent hearing. All this needs to be finalized before the sample is shipped.
 
The CHRB does not consider an adverse finding by the official lab to constitute a positive until it is confirmed by the split sample lab. The exception is when a split sample is not requested or denied for not meeting rule 1859.25 deadlines or other requirements. Only then does the CHRB declare a positive and file a complaint.

Rick M. Arthur, DVM
 (01 December 2007 - Issue Number: 6)