NHBPA Reiterates Opposition to Federal Drug Legislation

Eric Hamelback | tca.org

By

While a significant portion of this past weekend's Jockey Club Round Table Conference in Saratoga was devoted to publicly championing the merits of federal legislation to establish a racing regulatory organization headed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), a private Denver convention of the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association was busy scrutinizing–and eventually criticizing–the details of the Thoroughbred Horseracing Integrity Act of 2015.

In case the NHBPA's non-supportive stance wasn't clear based on numerous previously published reactions that questioned the bill's funding, the proposed regulators' lack of racing-related experience, and concerns about using the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 (IHA) as a means of coercing compliance, the NHBPA released a one-page position statement on Tuesday that read, in part, “after full review and discussion…it can still be said definitively that the NHBPA stands opposed” to HR 3084.

“The purpose of [last weekend's] legislative forum was to break down and dissect the bill as it pertains to the IHA and to USADA becoming a governing body,” NHBPA Chief Executive Officer Eric Hamelback told TDN. “We are very much in favor of punishment for those who break the rules, but also, you have to take into account states' rights. You can't trump somebody's rights, you have to give them due process.”

HR 3084 was filed on July 16 by Rep. Andy Barr (R-KY). It has the backing of the Coalition for Horse Racing Integrity, which includes The Jockey Club, Breeders' Cup Ltd., the Water Hay Oats Alliance, and The Humane Society, among other organizations.

The Barr bill is one of two similarly named drug-related racing bills recently filed (the other is HR 2641). Although the NHBPA has come out against any legislation that transfers regulatory powers to a private organization with no experience in testing horses, HR 3084 was the only legislation specifically addressed by Tuesday's NHBPA release, which can be read in its entirety here.

Hamelback, reached via phone while traveling near Saratoga, expanded upon some of the criticisms outlined in the release.

He said one of the NHBPA's chief beefs with the bill is that the oversight board that would run the so-called Thoroughbred Horseracing Anti-Doping Authority (THADA) would be too slanted toward non-racing individuals. The bill outlines the makeup of the 11-member board as having six USADA officials and five racing industry appointees, but the racing appointees, according to the selection criteria, are not supposed to have a vested interest in or have any financial ties to the sport.

“They would have no skin in the game,” said Hamelback. “It seems to rule out owners, trainers and employees. Anybody that has a direct link to the Thoroughbred industry cannot be on the board.”

Another criticism is funding, which is not clearly outlined in the bill beyond being based on an eventual per-starter fee system.

“The funding mechanism appears to turn over to THADA essentially a blank check, with which they can write their own budget,” Hamelback said.

In addition, Hamelback said deep-pocketed members of The Jockey Club who support the bill and race at the elite level “probably don't have a problem” with a per-starter fee system. But he said that form of funding would place an unfair financial burden on smaller-scale horsemen, whose lower-level claiming stock comprise the vast number of starters in United States racing.

THADA would be charged with coming up with lists of banned substances and practices. But Hamelback said the scope of such a task would be redundant in light of the scientific research that's already been done to by the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium and Association of Racing Commissioners International to establish uniform guidelines.

“I see it as duplicate work,” Hamelback said.

Although it's not specifically mentioned in the Barr bill, Hamelback said a major source of concern for the NHBPA would be the potential that furosemide (branded Lasix or Salix) could become a prohibited raceday treatment for exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging.

“The reasoning behind wanting to discontinue Lasix on raceday is not scientifically based. If anything, it's the contrary, in that furosemide happens to be a widely studied medication,” Hamelback said. “It happens to be very efficacious for a known problem, thus it's why the American Association of Equine Practitioners still stands behind…regulations including raceday medication with Lasix.”

Hamelback reiterated that the NHBPA's stance is “pro-therapeutic medication, and pro-therapeutic medication only.” He added, “If you are up front, and we maintain the therapeutic medication at the best possible thresholds where A) cheaters can be caught but B) our athletes can be enabled to perform at their best, then that is what we are for.”

Considering that the NHBPA is not in support of HR 3084, Hamelback was asked what his organization would prefer as an alternative to implementing federal drug legislation. Would the NHBPA rather keep the status quo, tweak it, or outline an entirely new plan of action?

“Good question,” Hamelback replied. “But please keep in mind, we are doing an extremely good job at catching cheaters. Again, that word, 'cheater,' it has an implication that cheaters win, and continue to beat everyone else. Look at the top five breeders, the top five owners, the top five trainers. And ask me who's going to walk up to one of them and say, 'I think you're cheating.' I don't believe in that.”

Hamelback continued: “So back to point, I think we are doing a good job. We had over 340,000 tests in 2013 and we had less than 1% overages, period….So I don't know that 'status quo' is quite the way I would state it, but I think we're doing a very good job. We are moving forwardly.”

 

Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.

Copy Article Link

X

Never miss another story from the TDN

Click Here to sign up for a free subscription.