Racehorse in red hood. The Horse magazine online.

When it comes to HISA, much of what we know is how much we don’t know

HISA stands for Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (in case you are just now seeing it). Before we get to Natalie Voss’s article on HISA (only she can unravel this mess), let’s take a look at how the HISA website describes the Act:

When the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (“HISA”) was signed into law on December 27, 2020, a new, safer era for the sport and its athletes began as industry stakeholders and experts in various fields came together to modernize the centuries-old tradition.

Efforts to stand up the independent Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (the “Authority”) and to develop uniform safety, operational and integrity standards to govern horse racing have been underway since HISA passed last winter.

What? “Have been underway?” Underway in what way exactly? All we have seen is a lot of babbling and handwringing. If it weren’t so tragic for the racehorses who are maimed and killed on the track or end up in the slaughterhouse, it would be laughable. How utterly predictable it all is. Just. Ban. Horseracing. And be done with it. —TH

The excellent Natalie Voss, in her article entitled “When it comes to HISA, much of what we know is how much we don’t know,” writes:

Open quote

At this point, the feasibility of the July 2022 deadline for implementation of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act is a matter of conjecture. According to panelists and audience members at the Racing and Gaming Conference at Saratoga Aug. 16, there’s a wide range of opinions on whether the legislation (which was signed into law at the end of 2020) is a good idea, where its greatest legal and logistical challenges may lie, and whether it will make its deadline.

First, it’s helpful to understand the basic definitions in the law, according to Pat Cummings, executive director of the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation. The law will apply to “covered horses,” “covered races,” and “covered persons.” Covered horses are any Thoroughbred from the time they post their first timed workout until the authority receives official notice of their retirement from racing. Covered races are those with parimutuel wagering, which means fair circuit races and steeplechase races are not automatically included. Covered persons, Cummings pointed out, includes the usual positions already licensed by state racing commissions like trainers, owners, jockeys, etc., but also includes breeders.

Cummings pointed out that currently, breeders are not licensed by state racing commissions, though in some states they may face action from their state breed organizations if they violate certain rules as members. This creates some confusion, since the federal law also places restrictions on use of bisphosphonates, which many in the industry say have been used on sales yearlings in an attempt to improve the appearance of pre-sale radiographs.

“Some of us argue that you’re still leaving breeders out by conferring jurisdiction when a horse has its first workout, which means you’re leaving a gap from the time the horse is born,” said panelist Alan Foreman, chairman and CEO of the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association. “The response is that there’s language about unfair and deceptive trade practices [which would apply].”

How widely that language or what may constitute “unfair and deceptive trade practices” could be applied is anyone’s guess at this stage.

One of the biggest concerns shared by many industry onlookers is what the new organization will cost, and who will pay for it. Cummings said horseplayers largely assume the bill will fall to them.

“I think the bettors would suggest they are already paying for it, based on takeout,” Cummings said. “There is a fear amongst bettors that increasing takeout will come as a means to pay for these programs.”

Racing commissions don’t know what they would be charged to outsource pre- and post-race drug testing to a new authority, and some in states with smaller racing industries have expressed concerns that an increase in testing costs would bankrupt them. Ed Martin, president and CEO of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, was in the audience and noted that most state racing commissions he has spoken with are looking forward to the change and believe it will make regulation more cost-efficient for them, with a few exceptions.

Attorney Pete Sacopulos also wonders whether legal costs for smaller training operations will rise. Sacopulos laid out his interpretation of the way drug positive cases could be adjudicated under HISA. The current process (which varies somewhat by state) sees the stewards issue a ruling when they determine there has been a violation of racing rules. If the licensee appeals that decision, the case may go to an administrative law judge and/or the racing commission, on to the state judicial review process, on up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sacopulos’ understanding of the federal law however, results in fewer choices for a trainer looking to appeal a finding. He believes HISA would hear a case, though it’s unclear whether this would be done by a subcommittee or the overall board. This could be appealed, but it would be appealed most likely to office of administrative law judge housed under the Federal Trade Commission banner, since HISA falls under the FTC’s purview. This would limit the pool of judges available to hear the case and therefore, restrict a defendant’s choice if they wanted to request a different judge than the one assigned. Sacopulos also believes the administrative law judge would hold another hearing, including witnesses and a review of evidence, rather than reading through existing transcripts and motions from the original hearing the way state courts do now. He also said HISA doesn’t seem to allow for mediation in such a case, which state and federal courts do.

If a trainer wants to continue appealing, Sacopulos said they would be requesting the FTC hear the case, which the organization could decline.

“You’re not guaranteed a hearing from the FTC, let’s be clear about that,” said Sacopulos, who said if the FTC chose not to hear a case, it would go straight to the U.S. Court of Appeals at the cost of $30,000 to $50,000 to the defendant. “How does a person with a minor overage operate in this system?

“They don’t.”

Read full article »

This is all a huge fail insofar as we can see. —TH.

Footnote

The Fund for Horses and other concerned horse centric groups believe we have rallied the right amount of power to introduce a bill at the federal level to outlaw horse racing in the United States. It will be massively hard to get enacted on its first outing, but we are willing to “take a run” at it. Stay tuned to Tuesday’s Horse. Thank you.

Support Our Work

Contribute to our War Chest! Make a fast, free, secure donation today. 100% matching gift offer extended to August 30th. Thank you. Thank you for your trust and support.

TH

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s