CHRB Inches Forward on Third-Party Lasix

The California Horse Racing Board's three-plus year odyssey to require independent, third-party veterinary administration of furosemide (Lasix) inched forward another step on Wednesday, when board members voted to accept its Medication and Track Safety Committee's newly clarified version of the proposed rule.

“Given that this thing has been discussed ad nauseum,” CHRB chairman Chuck Winner said, he asked if it would be possible to get the measure passed as an emergency regulation so it might take effect immediately.

When staff counsel answered with a one-word reply of “no,” Winner immediately called for a motion to put the proposed rule out for the required 45-day public comment period and a review by the state's Office of Administrative Law.

With zero discussion, the motion passed unanimously.

Wednesday's quick passage was a stark contrast to the logjam the CHRB encountered when the third-party Lasix rule last came up for vote on Aug. 20. At that meeting, the proposal was batted around like a piñata for 90 minutes before finally being remanded back to the Medication and Track Safety Committee for further clarification.

At that Aug. 20 meeting, CHRB equine medical director Rick Arthur, DVM, called the state's inability to align with the National Uniform Medication Program's policy on third-party Lasix an “embarrassment to California and this board and this industry.”

Arthur did not speak on the issue at Wednesday's meeting. Based on commissioner Madeline Auerbach's concise recap of the Sept. 4 meeting of the Medication and Track Safety Committee, it was clear he didn't have to.

Auerbach, who chairs the medication and safety panel, detailed how her committee had discussed three potential options for moving forward with third-party Lasix rule language: Version A (the original text of the rule); version B (the same as version A but with improved definitions and terms), and version C (an offshoot of B that included the option of allowing private vets to continue to administer Lasix while under observation by a CHRB staffer).

Auerbach said the medication and safety panel heard testimony from 17 non-CHRB attendees on Sept. 4, consisting primarily of trainers, owners, veterinarians and officials from various horsemen's groups. General support for the rule was mixed with ideas for tweaking the security procedures and protocols, plus some appeals to allow private vets to continue to administer Lasix under CHRB supervision.

“At the conclusion of the discussion, I indicated that the committee's support for version B, option 1, requiring that Lasix be administered by a designated furosemide veterinarian, which would put us in step with the rest of the country,” Auerbach said. To emphasize her point, she added, “In other words, read that [as] third-party administration.”

Under the new language, the administrator of the injection must not have had a veterinarian-client relationship with the licensee whose horse is receiving Lasix for up to 30 days prior to the shot.

Auerbach said she told attendees at the Sept. 4 meeting that horsemen, vets and track officials should work in unison to contribute to a smooth phasing-in of the third-party Lasix program.

“I indicated that there is absolutely nothing stopping the industry stakeholders from [streamlining the process and strengthening security protocols],” Auerbach said. “This does not require board direction. I encouraged them to get together and work out these things in whatever fashion that they wish to do so. There's no reason that they can't. They certainly don't need us to tell them to do the right thing. It doesn't preclude the CHRB from moving forward with our initiative…We can move forward with our initiative, and those working in the industry who want to create a more secure environment can certainly work together and get that done.”

Once the third-party Lasix issue gets squared away, CHRB officials might have a new horse-health debate to fill the bureaucratic void: A separate agenda item on Wednesday called for possible action on a rule that would require a post-mortem examination review of each equine fatality on CHRB-regulated property.

The proposed rule hit several snags during discussion. One concerned issues surrounding the privacy of any documents that trainers and vets would be required to hand over in any such review.

“If we are telling people that we are not going to keep their material, that we are going to return their records, that we are not going to make copies, we've got to say so [in the specific language of the rule]. Otherwise, we have license to do that,” said Auerbach. “I don't think we're really ready to do this, because I think it needs some work.”

There was also ambiguity over whether the results of such reviews would be strictly limited to the rule's intended “education and research purposes only,” even if the review uncovered alleged rules violations that would require commission-level discipline.

“If we learn through the post-mortem report that something nefarious has taken place, will that limit our ability to use that post-mortem report as evidence in any action?” Winner asked.

Winner suggested that the language to the proposal be better defined and brought back as an agenda item at next month's meeting.