What's Next For Competing Anti-Doping Bills?

With two similarly named drug-related racing bills competing for legislative attention on Capitol Hill, it seems appropriate to trot out the old adage “people who appreciate both laws and sausages should observe neither in the making.”

Even though it's early in the process, not only is the horse racing industry watching the federal lawmaking process with rapt attention, but the grilling has already begun–even before the meat of both bills has been squeezed into their respective casings.

HR 3084 (click here to read) is the Thoroughbred Horseracing Integrity Act of 2015 filed on July 16 by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY). Its chief aim is to police Thoroughbred doping and medication abuse via the establishment of a federal, non-governmental racing regulatory organization headed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

HR 2641 (click here to read) is the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2015 filed on June 3 by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA). It shares a similar anti-doping thrust by empowering USADA, but it differs from the above-mentioned bill in that it would prohibit the use of race-day medications and its rules would additionally cover Quarter Horse and Standardbred racing.

Both bills are facing mixed support from within the industry. The differences of opinion range from slight disagreements over semantics to flat-out resistance to anything being done at all. Depending on whom you talk to, partnering with the Feds to straighten out the sport's drug woes is either a long-overdue, much-needed paradigm shift or the beginning of an ill-fated relationship that will haunt the game for years to come.

The cudgel for compliance in both bills would be simulcasting privileges, and the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association has made it clear that it strongly opposes any attempt to tinker with the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978. And the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) is against any bill that transfers regulatory powers to a private organization that has no experience in testing horses.

Even those who favor some form of third-party doping regulation are split on which bill is right for the industry.

HR 3084 has the backing of the Coalition for Horse Racing Integrity, which includes The Jockey Club, Breeders' Cup Ltd., the Water Hay Oats Alliance (WHOA), and The Humane Society, among other organizations.

But cracks of fragmentation within that coalition are

beginning to appear: Gretchen Jackson, a WHOA founder, wrote in a July 17 TDN letter to the editor that “WHOA without consent of all its founding members, and advisory board, has signed up and supports the wrong bill.”

Separate from the racing industry's split views on the anti-doping legislation, another obstacle to passage might be the political climate of Washington, D.C., itself. Both bills have been assigned to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Will lawmakers who are only passingly familiar with racing's highly specialized wants and needs recognize these measures as deserving of their immediate attention? Will they even be able to differentiate between the two similar bills?

GovTrack, a government transparency organization that uses logistic regression analysis to rank the likelihood of passage of the 10,000 bills that come up annually in Congress, gives HR 3084 (Barr's bill) a 5% chance of getting past committee and a 2% chance of being enacted. HR 2641 (Pitts's bill) ranks at a 3% chance getting past committee and a 1% chance of enactment. As a benchmark, GovTrack notes that in 2013-15, roughly 15% of all bills made it past committee. Only about 3% were enacted.

If you're in favor of a federal partnership and this brief look at the inner workings of the sausage factory is starting to leave you a little squeamish, take heart: Those closest to the process–particularly with respect to HR 3084 (Barr's bill)–seem calm and confident that the legislative mechanisms are playing out properly, and that some form of an anti-doping measure may yet beat GovTrack's long odds.

“We're starting in a good place, because it's a bipartisan bill,” Barr told TDN last Thursday immediately after his bill's introduction. “It's a bill that has a lot interest from both sides of the aisle here in the House, and so the way these things work is you just build momentum and address whatever concerns there are as the process moves along.”

Pitts's press office has yet to acknowledge a Monday request from TDN to give a progress report on his bill.

Barry Irwin, the chief executive officer of Team Valor International, traveled to Washington to support last Thursday's House Triangle unveiling of HR 3084. Irwin has been involved in previous anti-doping legislative efforts in D.C., and he said the reception among lawmakers was markedly different than two years ago, when he testified before a Senate commerce committee in support of a different regulatory bill.

“The last time it was very combative and there was some strife,” Irwin said. “You could see we weren't getting anywhere, you know? It was frustrating.”

But last week, Irwin contrasted, legislators and their aides “were very receptive. I was pretty encouraged, just by the questions they asked and how quickly they picked up on what we are trying to do. What we're asking for is very, very simple. We want USADA to be installed and to create a new entity that will oversee drugs in racing. That's basically the gist of what we're looking for.”

Irwin said one aide for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) likened HR 3084's request for national oversight to the need for country-wide labeling on genetically modified (GM) foods. Individual states have different standards for GM food labels, the aide told Irwin, but even a states' rights advocate like Graham could clearly see the need for a broader national GM labeling system in the interest of overall public safety.

Chauncey Morris, executive director of the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association and Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners & Breeders, also showed up to support Barr's bill. He agreed with Irwin that the political mindset has shifted.

“There is a cognizance on Capitol Hill that [the industry has reached] the limits of what the state-by-state regulatory system can grant us,” Morris said.

Irwin predicted that the infighting among various Thoroughbred groups will eventually end and that the sport's interests will unify into a “cohesive unit.”

“I would be very surprised if this did not turn out positively, that all of our horse guys were together,” Irwin said.

“There might be a little more angst along the way, but knowing these people, knowing [WHOA members] Mr. [George] Strawbridge and the Jacksons [Roy and Gretchen], I have a very good feeling that we will come to a meeting of the minds. We all want the same thing. They just want to go about it one way and we want to go about it another.”

Morris underscored that a unified front was critical.

“I think that it's incumbent on the industry itself, frankly, to demonstrate where the consensus lies,” Morris said. “All I can say, in the political process, there's always room for compromise and negotiations.”

On the day Barr's bill was introduced, Pitts's office lashed out with a press release that made it seem as if working out a compromise between the two bills was not high on the congressman's to-do list.

“This new proposal masquerades under the veneer of 'reform' but sadly, if enacted, would actually make matters worse by allowing drugs and medications to be used in race horses on race day,” Pitts said in criticism of HR 3084. “This is unacceptable and this is why real reform has as its foundational underpinnings, a ban or prohibition of drugs, all drugs, in horses on race day.”

Irwin offered a more mildly tempered take on the clashing bills.

“[Pitts's] aides are not particularly happy with what [Barr has] done and what we're trying to do,” Irwin said. “They are very upset. But I think that now that [HR 3084] has been filed, if those guys want to come in there and talk about it, amend it or whatever, our side is going to be very receptive.”

Irwin continued: “In my opinion, the vast majority of stakeholders do agree that something needs to be done. But there is a vociferous pocket of people that are just very happy with the way it is right now and they don't want to change anything…Not the individual members [of various industry groups], not the constituencies, but the people who are in power…People that this could either financially impact negatively, or that might lose some power in some way. Those people are not real thrilled about this initiative. But rank-and-file racing people who want a level playing field? Yes, they want to see some change. And so do I.”

Ed Martin, the ARCI president, said that beyond the regulatory scope of the two bills, he is perplexed that neither piece of legislation attempts to go after federal anti-doping money. He pointed out that Congress currently appropriates $9 million annually for anti-doping in sports, and he said that money is not earmarked for any one specific entity beyond being assigned to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

“What absolutely amazes me is that the racing interests who are supportive of federal legislation have not attempted to peel off one dollar of that appropriation to help do additional research on anti-doping in racing,” Martin said.

“The Racing Medication and Testing Consortium is sorely in need of those types of resources, and the RMTC would be an appropriate repository for that investment.”

Martin also suggested that American racing interests would be wise to look north to get a close-up look at how the implementation of a national drug regulatory body will have little impact on racing's overall doping woes.

“[The ARCI] represents the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency. It is a federal agency. It is funded off an assessment of handle. They set the medication policy in all of Canada,” Martin explained. “They do all of the drug testing for all the provinces. It is totally transparent. It is a government entity. But at the end of the day, they do no better or worse than what anybody's doing [state by state] in the United States, and they have the same problems that we have.

“People who say that these federal concepts are some silver bullet that's going to change something, they're not talking to people in the field who have to do this every day.”

So what's next in the pipeline for both bills? Congress will break for summer recess July 31 and will not resume until Sept. 8.

“We have some strategies. I'm not going to talk about them to you, because that would not be proper,” Irwin said. “But we've got a very good game plan. And if we can bring some of the other people on to co-sponsor it in the Senate, I think we'll be in pretty good shape.”

Irwin noted that Barr and HR 3084's co-sponsor, Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), are co-chairs of the Congressional Horse Caucus, which he described as a tremendous asset.

“Barr's got a big following, he's got a lot of credibility,” Irwin said. “When you have a guy like that from Lexington, and then you've got this Paul Tonko from Saratoga, you've got two pretty good bastions right there.”

Morris said he understands that there are differing

viewpoints, and he can respect that some industry stakeholders favor Pitts's bill over Barr's. But he said those in opposition shouldn't play the role of obstructionists simply for the sake of derailing both bills.

“I think that we should not let problems or differences define us,” Morris said. “If people are unhappy with the legislation that is presented right now, then they need to set forth opinions on how they could be happy with it. People should take a deliberate, thoughtful approach in what they can live with in the racing bill and what they cannot, then run that up the flagpole. It'll be interesting to see what the [legislative] product is coming out.”