#Soundbites - The Racing Integrity Act - which will create uniform national medication rules and testing - seemingly on its way to becoming law - is that good or bad?

By Bill Heller

With the Racing Integrity Act, which will create uniform national medication rules and testing, passing the House of Representatives and seemingly on its way to becoming law, is that good or bad?

*************************************

Jimmy Toner

Jimmy Toner

I think it’s good in some respects. We need it. You go from state to state with medication protocol and licenses, and it drives you nuts. We need a national authority to oversee the sport. Same medication rules. Same whip rules. To get that all under one roof will be helpful in that aspect. The other side of the coin is the feds are involved. That might be a bad thing. If it’s an offense, then it's a federal offense. 

***********************************

Bruce Brown

I think it’s very good. I am all for uniform rules at every track. It’s a little ridiculous now, always having to know what’s allowed and not allowed with protocols. Not just having a blanket that says this is how it is, this is what you can do, and this is what you can’t. Now, when I ship, I say what can we do here?  What’s the difference? So we don’t do something that’s legal in one place and not legal in the other.

**********************************

Pat Kelly

I’m a little skeptical myself. Here in New York, our mid-Atlantic group has been very forward regarding medication standards, trying to get everyone on the same page. We’ve made a lot of progress trying to get the rest of the country to jump aboard with us. I’m not a big fan of big government. 

*********************************

Eddie Kenneally

Eddie Kenneally

It’s very good. If it’s passed, the medication guidelines will be the same in every state, and the penalties will be the same in every state, and the testing will be done by the same lab. There are three reasons alone why it’s a good thing. I hope penalties will stick with no loopholes under this new law. 

********************************

Linda Rice

Linda Rice

I think there’s a lot to be done on the bill. It’s the beginning of the process and it’s going to take time. But I think it’s a beginning, a start. I think it’s a good thing for racing.

******************************

Tim Hills

I think there is one exception we need. We need to study the Lasix question before we ban Lasix. Everything else, we’re all on board. I think anybody who is not for it has a guilty conscience.

********************************

Mike Stidham

Mike Stidham

I think that we need some uniformity in our industry. Whatever it takes to get that, to get everyone going in the same direction is a move forward. We need something to make this happen. It’s good for racing.

CLICK HERE to return to issue contents

ISSUE 58 (PRINT)

$6.95

ISSUE 58 (DIGITAL)

$3.99

WHY NOT SUBSCRIBE?

DON'T MISS OUT AND SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE NEXT FOUR ISSUES!

Four issue subscription - ONLY $24.95

Indiana's New "Biological Samples" Testing Law: Integrity Assured Or Invasive Overreach?

By Peter J. Sacopulos

From House Bill To Horse Law

On May 1, 2019, Governor Eric Holcomb signed Indiana House Bill 1196 into law. The statute, which took effect on July 1 of this year, directs the Indiana Horse Racing Commission (IHRC) to adopt a variety of new rules and procedures governing horse racing within the state. 

Governor Holcomb and Indiana State Representative Bob Cherry, who introduced HB 1196 to the legislature, are Republicans. However, the bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support—a rarity in current American politics. In fact, the final version sailed through both chambers, receiving not a single “nay” vote in the House and a mere three “nays” in the Senate. 

HB 1196 is something of an equine regulatory smorgasbord. Examples of its provisions include officially changing references to the IHRC’s “secretary” to “executive director,” altering the way breed advisory committee members are appointed, specifying that certain funds be directed to the Indiana-sired horses program, and the creation of new privacy protections to guard the personal information required on license applications.

Items like these, as well as several others included in HB 1196, are unlikely to cause ripples within the racing community. However, the new law also includes provisions designed to enhance and expand the Commission’s ability to detect, police and reduce the use of banned substances. And while this is undoubtedly a worthwhile cause, a two-word term used in the drug-testing language of HB 1196 has the potential to negatively impact horses and trainers for years to come, with consequences that may spread well beyond the borders of Indiana. 

Two Words, Too Broad?

The two-word term is “biological sample.” It is legally defined in the statue as follows:

“Biological sample” refers to any fluid, tissue or other substance obtained from a horse through an internal or external means to test for foreign substances, natural substances at abnormal levels, and prohibited medications. The term includes blood, urine, saliva, hair, muscle tissue collected at a necropsy, semen, and other substances appropriate for testing as determined by the commission. 

This definition goes well beyond the longstanding blood, saliva, urine, and more recently, hair, samples routinely collected from Thoroughbred competitors for analysis. It is also disturbingly open-ended. Indeed, the phrase: “…and other substances appropriate for testing as determined by the commission…”  is a definition that is essentially wide open, providing the IHRC staff the power to define or redefine a “biological sample.”

While there was discussion and temporary agreement to limit the use of biological samples to necropsy purposes, that limitation was removed from the final version of the bill that was signed into law and became effective July 1, 2019. Therefore, the Commission Staff is authorized and may elect to take muscle tissue, and other biological samples, from live animals as it deems and determines necessary and appropriate. This rule and its definition of biological sample establishes a new frontier of testing. 

Is This Risk Really Necessary?

One of the primary concerns and positions advanced in opposition to allowing biological samples to be taken from live animals is the risk of injury.

Taking saliva and hair samples from a Thoroughbred is painless and easy. And anyone who has ever been around horses knows that they are more than happy to provide all the urine you could ever want! Drawing blood from a horse is only slightly more difficult and rarely involves the use of a local anesthetic. 

However, taking “…any fluid, tissue or other substance… through an internal or external means…” is another matter entirely. It opens the door to far more invasive collection techniques that carry far greater risks for horses than blood, saliva, urine or hair sampling. To be clear, I am referring to biopsies. 

A biopsy is the removal and examination of cells or tissue from a living being for the purposes of testing and examination. Any biopsy carries risk of injury or infection. Taking a biopsy from a horse may be as simple as a skin sample from the withers or tissue from the lining of the mouth, or as difficult as removing material from the teeth or the interior of the eye; or from internal organs such as the heart, lungs, liver, intestine or colon. In the latter examples, a biopsy becomes a complex medical procedure. A procedure performed on a large, valuable animal requires sedation and may require general anesthesia to facilitate tissue collection. 

Sedating a horse is serious business. Sedatives and anesthetics carry significant risks, even when administered with care by skilled equine veterinary professionals. Those risks include allergic reactions, collapse, excitement, cardiac arrest, medical injury and post-anesthetic colic.

TO READ MORE - BUY THIS ISSUE IN PRINT OR DOWNLOAD

ISSUE 54 (PRINT)

$6.95

ISSUE 54 (DIGITAL)

$3.99

WHY NOT SUBSCRIBE?

DON'T MISS OUT AND SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE NEXT FOUR ISSUES!

Four issue subscription - PRINT & ONLINE - ONLY $24.9