[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BREEDING, DRUGS, AND BREAKDOWNS: THE STATE OF THOROUGHBRED HORSERACING
AND THE WELFARE OF THE THOROUGHBRED RACEHORSE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE,
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-129
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
56-803 WASHINGTON : 2008
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California JOE BARTON, Texas
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Member
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
FRANK PALLONE, . r., New Jersey FRED UPTON, Michigan
BART GORDON, Tennessee CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ANNA G. ESHOO, California ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BART STUPAK, Michigan BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Vice Chairman Mississippi
LOIS CAPPS, California VITO FOSSELLA, New York
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania STEVE BUYER, Indiana
JANE HARMAN, California GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
TOM ALLEN, Maine JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois MARY BONO MACK, California
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
JAY INSLEE, Washington MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
______
Professional Staff
Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of Staff
Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel
Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk
David L. Cavicke, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois, Chairman
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois CLIFF STEARNS, Florida,
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
JOHN BARROW, Georgia ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BARON P. HILL, Indiana CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Mississippi
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia VITO FOSSELLA, New York
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas MARY BONO MACK, California
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JIM MATHESON, Utah MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, prepared statement \1\............................
Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 3
Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, opening statement.................................. 5
Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nebraska, opening statement.................................... 6
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 7
Witnesses
Alan Marzelli, President and Chief Operating Officer, The Jockey
Club, New York, New York....................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Answers to submitted questions............................... 174
Richard Shapiro, Chairman, Caliornia Horseracing Board,
Calabasas, California.......................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Answers to submitted questions............................... 178
Jack Van Berg, Trainer, Inglewood, California.................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Answers to submitted questions............................... 180
Randy Moss, Analyst, ESPN........................................ 27
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Submitted questions \2\......................................
Arthur Hancock, President, Stone Farm, Paris, Kentucky........... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Answers to submitted questions............................... 182
Jess Stonestreet Jackson, Stonestreet Farm, Geyserville, Georgia. 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Submitted questions \3\......................................
Lawrence R. Soma, V.M.D., Professor, School of Veterinary
Medicine, New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania........ 64
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Answers to submitted questions............................... 183
Susan M. Stover, D.V.M., Ph.D., Dipl. ACVS, University of
California-Davis............................................... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Wayne McIlwraith, Ph.D., D.V.M., F.R.C.V.S., Gail Holmes Equine
Orthopaedic Research Center, Colorado State University......... 93
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Answers to submitted questions............................... 195
Mary C. Scollay, D.V.M., Equine Medical Director, Kentucky Horse
Racing Authority............................................... 114
Prepared statement........................................... 116
Answers to submitted questions............................... 195
Allie Conrad, Executive Director, CANTER Mid-Atlantic,
Gaithersburg, Maryland......................................... 125
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Answers to submitted questions............................... 198
Alexander M. Waldrop, Chief Executive Officer, National
Thoroughbred Racing Association................................ 168
Prepared statement........................................... 169
Submitted questions \4\......................................
----------
\1\ Mr. Rush did not submit a prepared statement.
\2\ Mr. Moss did not answer submitted questions for the record.
\3\ Mr. Jackson did not answer submitted questions for the
record.
\4\ Mr. Waldrop did not answer submitted questions for the
record.
BREEDING, DRUGS, AND BREAKDOWNS: THE STATE OF THOROUGHBRED HORSERACING
AND THE WELFARE OF THE THOROUGHBRED RACEHORSE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade,
and Consumer Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jan Schakowsky
presiding.
Present: Representatives Schakowsky, Barrow, Hill,
Whitfield, Stearns, Pitts, Terry, and Burgess.
Staff Present: Christian Fjeld, Consuela Washington,
Valerie Baron, James Robertson, Brian McCullough, Shannon
Weinberg, Will Carty, and Chad Grant.
Ms. Schakowsky. The Subcommittee of the Commerce, Trade and
Consumer Protection Subcommittee will begin and come to order.
I want to begin my opening statement once again
acknowledging our subcommittee Chairman, my friend and
colleague Bobby Rush, who continues to recuperate in Chicago.
We all look forward to his swift return to Washington. At this
time I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert Chairman
Rush's statement into the record. Without objection, so
ordered.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Rush was unavailable at
the time of printing.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes
for the purpose of an opening statement.
The death of Eight Belles on the track of the Kentucky
Derby 2 months ago was a symptom of a host of problems that
plague thoroughbred racing. The best racehorses in the sport
are bred for speed because they make their money in the
breeding shed instead of on the racetrack. Catastrophic
breakdowns of thoroughbred horses are becoming more common as
they become increasingly fragile over the years. Horses are
doped up on performance-enhancing drugs such as cocaine,
caffeine, and anabolic steroids to make them as fast as
possible.
Whether horses are sturdy enough to withstand the rigors of
racing, it is really an afterthought, and almost no one pays
attention to what their lives are like after they retire. As
the horses falter, more and more jockeys face serious injuries
and paralysis, and with no central regulatory body overseeing
the sport, there are almost no real restrictions on any of
these practices.
It seems that greed has trumped the health of horses, the
safety of the jockey, and the integrity of the sport. Although
breakdowns have always been a part of this sport, long-term
racing commentators and horsemen assert that the thoroughbred
horse as a breed is becoming weaker. This may be because
commercial breeding focuses on creating faster horses at an
earlier age with little regard to the consequences of their
practices.
Take a look at the pedigree of the late Eight Belles, for
example. Many observers say--is the chart up? It is not on the
monitor. OK. Many observers say that Eight Belles was a genetic
disaster waiting to happen. If you look at the chart, you can
see her bloodlines were too inbred. Her great-great-grandfather
four generations back on her father's side, Mr. Prospector, was
also her great-grandfather on her mother's side three
generations back. This is known as a three-by-four inbred. And
Mr. Prospector, his father, Raise a Native, and his father,
Native Dancer, all had something in common. Mr. Prospector was
a brilliant racehorse, but he was also very unsound. He was
retired due to chronic ankle injuries; raced only four times
and won all four races, but then broke down. Native Dancer,
another fast racehorse that was retired due to chronic
inflammation in his ankles. Eight Belles came from a brilliant
but fragile bloodline. All of those sires had problems in their
ankles. And if this weren't enough to raise alarm, her father,
Unbridled Song, highlighted up on this board, was another fast
racehorse who showed brilliance later on, but who was
permanently retired because of, yes, a fracture in his front
ankle.
To professional breeders her pedigree should have raised
alarms, but they proceeded anyway, and many would argue that
millions of people saw the horrible consequence of their choice
live on national television.
Also disturbing is how these animals are abused while they
are in their prime. Horses are commonly injected with so many
performance-enhancing drugs and other medications that it has
become almost impossible to tell what their natural condition
is. Many racehorses are regularly injected with painkillers
which allow them to run injured by masking the pain in his or
her legs and joints. According to data submitted to the
committee by the Racing Commissioners International, there were
nearly 1,900 drug violations in horseracing in the last 5
years. But whether or not this data is accurate is questionable
given the absence of reporting requirements throughout the
industry.
What is going on here? What is happening to the Sport of
Kings? Unlike every other professional and amateur sport,
horseracing lacks a central regulatory authority or league that
can promulgate uniform rules and regulations. While baseball
and football now impose strict rules that severely penalize
players for steroid and performance-enhancing drugs,
horseracing remains a confusing patchwork of different
regulations from State to State.
One of the central questions that the subcommittee wants to
explore is, does horseracing need a central governing
authority? Is the racing industry truly capable of making
reforms on its own under the current regulatory framework?
There are those who believe that Congress should not be
involved in horseracing; however, Congress is already involved.
The Interstate Horseracing Act, which is under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction, allows racetracks a unique status
under Federal law. Unlike any other gambling operation in
America, they are allowed to transmit their racing product
across State lines and receive wagers from bettors out of
State.
It is because Congress allows horseracing this benefit that
90 percent of the $15.4 billion wagered on horseracing is from
simulcast betting. As such, I ask all witnesses and all of the
industry stakeholders to work with us, work with us to clean up
your sport, work with us to save thoroughbred racehorses from
destruction on the track. I say that, by the way, as a former
owner of a thoroughbred who did perform on the track. Work with
us to protect jockeys that ride them, work with us to create
uniform tough standards that apply to every State, work with us
to restore horseracing back to its perch as one of the
America's most popular spectacles so that it can truly live up
to its nickname as the Sport of Kings.
I want to welcome all of our witnesses. I know they are the
stars of the industry and commentators on the industry, and
look forward to hearing each of your testimony.
Ms. Schakowsky. I will now recognize the Ranking Member Mr.
Whitfield for 5 minutes to make an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Chairwoman Schakowsky, thank you very much
for holding this important hearing. And I, like you, would
certainly want to welcome our witnesses today on both panels,
all of whom, I believe, have the best interest of this industry
at heart. And we look forward to your testimony and what you
have to say and what suggestions you might make to us about
this important industry.
This industry is vitally important to our country, not only
economically, over a $40 billion-a-year effect on our economy.
Many people obtain a lot of recreation by attending races
around the country. And then we know racing is an important and
cherished part of this Nation's history. But I do believe that
horseracing is at a crossroads today, and I would like to
reiterate what the Chairwoman said, that--and I agree with
her--greed has trumped the health of the horse, the safety of
the jockey, the strength of the breed, and the integrity of the
sport.
Now, why do I say that? I think there are three primary
problems in this industry today. First of all, our horses race
on drug-induced ability more than natural ability, and
therefore, when we select winners for breeding, we are not
necessarily selecting the best horse from a soundness
standpoint. I read an article recently, and the author said
that the question used to be who had the best horse, but many
people today say, who has the best veterinarian? I don't think
that that is good for this industry in the long term, and it
certainly has had an impact in many different ways.
A second problem area, in my view, is a lack of
transparency regarding deaths on the track, regarding injuries
on the track, and the ramifications that has for safety issues,
particularly for the jockeys. I remember a couple of years ago
we had a hearing, and Gary Birzer, a jockey, was injured up at
either Charlestown or Mountaineer. He is a quadriplegic today.
He had no insurance because the Jockey's Guild let him down,
and his rehabilitation and his family--basically his medical
needs are being met by Medicaid, a taxpayer program.
And then I might also say that I read an AP article that
said over the last 5 years there have been 5,000 deaths on the
track, but that did not include all of the States, it only
included 29. It did not include all of the tracks in Florida,
only one. Then I read another article that said there had been
3,035 deaths over 5 years.
The fact is we don't really know the answer to that because
there is not a uniform tracking system in this industry. We
know how many starts there are, but we asked the Jockey Club
how many horses finished, how many horses were euthanized, how
many horses were scratched, and they didn't know the answer to
that. And we know that a horse named Runaway Sue up in
Charlestown about 4 weeks ago was killed in the starting gate,
but the official designation of what happened to that horse was
that she was scratched. So I do agree with Dr. Rick Arthur, the
California medical director, when he said nobody knows truly
how big a problem this because the data is simply not there.
A third issue in this industry is the lack of a central
authority or an entity that has the regulatory power and
authority to make decisions and to enforce rules and
regulations. As has already been stated, there are 38 different
racing jurisdictions, and there is not any one entity that can
enforce those regulations. So that is a real problem.
Now, I know people that have been critical and they said
the Federal Government has no part in this industry, but we
know that the industry came to Congress back in 1977-1978 and
asked that Congress pass the Interstate Horseracing Act to
allow simulcasting that today provides 90 percent of the
revenue of the $15 billion that is wagered each year. And then
they came back in 2006 and asked Congress to amend it to
address some concerns with the Wire Act because of the problems
with the Department of Justice. And yet when Congress looks at
the Horseracing Act as a vehicle to improve the sport, they all
run away and say, no, the Federal Government does not need to
be involved. But I would submit that if the Federal Government
provides the revenue, the vehicle for the revenue,
simulcasting, we have a responsibility to set minimum standards
to ensure the safety of those participants, to ensure the
integrity of the breed and the sport, and to ensure that we
have a uniform medical rule around the country.
So I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today.
And thank you again, Chairwoman Schakowsky, for holding this
hearing. And I do also want to thank Chairman Rush, who had the
hearings on the anabolic steroids and their impact on all the
sports, including horseracing, and obviously without his
support and your support, we would not have a hearing today. So
we are thinking about Chairman Rush today as well. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield.
And now Mr. Stearns.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Stearns. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank
you for this hearing. And I thank the Ranking Member Mr.
Whitfield for his very illustrative opening statement, which I
think is echoed by many of us in this room.
I say to the witnesses and to the people who are listening,
this hearing is a wake-up call for you. There is abuse in your
industry. You know it better than I. When I chaired this
subcommittee during Republican control, we had hearings on
steroids in baseball, football, basketball, professional
wrestling, hockey, and what we said to the witnesses was we
don't want to come in and regulate you, we want you to regulate
yourself. So this is a wake-up call.
As Mr. Whitfield said, we have jurisdiction here. You come
to us and ask us for regulation. And then a lot of you come to
us and say, oh, don't bother regulating us, but you wanted us
to pass legislation in 1978 and 2006. And then you come back
here and say, well, we don't have any jurisdiction. And that is
oftentimes what we hear from our constituents.
But I am saying there is a wake-up call here for you. We
are talking about an industry with over 7 million Americans
involved in the horse industry. It generates $112 billion in
economic activity and supports 1.4 million full-time jobs. You
have a fiduciary responsibility to make this industry
transparent.
In my hometown of Ocala, we have--between Levy and Citrus
County, we have over 1,000 horse farms. And all these people
are trying to do the right thing, but they are going to need
leadership from the people in this room.
I cochair the Congressional Horse Caucus, so I am deeply
concerned about this industry, and I just want to know, was
this a freak accident with Eight Belles, and was this
demonstration something that we are going to see continually,
or are you folks going to step up to the plate and do
something? I don't necessarily want you to work with us. Work
without us and prepare this Sport of Kings so that everything
is in order and that there are rules and regulations that are
promulgated from the top so that we don't need to develop a
central regulatory authority from Congress. We are asking you
to step up to the plate.
Over the past 5 years, 3,035 thoroughbred horses have died
in horseracing tracks across this country. Are you going to
tell me this is normal, is this OK? Are these deaths the result
of unsafe commercial breeding practices, of unsafe track
surfaces, or of trainers administering certain drugs to improve
the horse's performance?
Now, obviously in the hearings I had in baseball, football,
and basketball we made the case. We asked them to come up with
a drug program, and they did. And so I think that was very
effectual for our subcommittee on our hearings. There are
trainers in this industry who give their horses cocaine, an
illegal drug, to enhance their performance, and all they
receive for this is a slap on the wrist or a small fine.
Likewise, there are trainers who administer pain medication to
mask a horse's injury so that they still can run a race even if
this is detrimental to the long-term physical well-being of the
horse.
Today's horses appear to be much more fragile than the
great racehorses of the past. Now, is this something that would
require us to step in, or can you set up some type of
regulatory authority for horseracing so that this can be
transparent and prevent these horses from almost committing
suicide?
We have a place in this discussion as Members of Congress.
As Mr. Whitfield pointed out, we passed the Interstate
Horseracing Act, which allows racetracks to accept bets from
across State lines. The interstate track betting significantly
contributes to the $40 billion thoroughbred horseracing
industry. So I hope the people in this room, and a lot of
people in the horse industry who are making a fortune, should
have a moral responsibility to step up here and try to answer
these questions and put in place some kind of regulatory
authority so that this does not continue.
I look forward to the testimonies today, Madam Chairman,
and I thank you for this hearing.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Stearns.
Next in order of appearance, Mr. Terry.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Terry. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the
opportunity, and I welcome our witnesses. I especially enjoy
having Jack Van Berg here, as I worked at Ak-Sar-Ben Racetrack
for 4 years; put myself through 2 years of college and 2 years
of law school there in its good days. And your horses were
always stable there, pun intended. And a good friend of mine,
Bob Kruger, whose grandsons are my interns here, you trained
their grandfather's horses right now. So they are really
enjoying working this issue.
This is eerily similar to some hearings we held almost 2
years ago with boxing, and how boxing had failed to regulate
itself, perhaps even taking itself down to the level of
wrestling, and the McCain bill to try and create a Federal
commission within the Department of Commerce to regulate
boxing. And there is, of course, as the opening statements have
pointed out, some high jinks within horseracing that I think
belittle the majesty of the sport.
It is a great sport. I will tell you there is nothing
better than being along the rail as the horses come around the
turn, and the sound of it is just thrilling. But to think that
the bloodlines have been prostituted in a way that maybe makes
the horse lines more fragile, and risking injury and death is a
legitimate issue that the industry needs to look at.
Of course, the doping issue. We have been criticized for
looking into baseball doping, so I don't know where we are
going to be on ESPN tonight on criticizing horse doping, but it
is an issue. And I think it is something that the horseracing
industry needs to look at so fans like me, when a horse comes
around the turn, we know is in a legitimate competition and not
leading the pack because of what drugs had been administered to
it before the race.
So I am looking forward to your testimony with some
nostalgia from my days at Ak-Sar-Ben Racetrack and Jack Van
Berg's days there as well. And thank you for holding this
hearing, and I yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
And now Mr. Pitts.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding
this important hearing on Breeding, and Drugs and Breakdowns:
The State of Thoroughbred Horseracing and the Welfare of the
Thoroughbred Racehorse. I also extend my thanks to Mr.
Whitfield for his leadership on this issue and in bringing this
hearing to fruition.
Along with my colleagues I remain deeply concerned about
the use of drugs in horseracing. It is vital that the industry
and its leadership come up with immediate long-term solutions
to this problem, or those in the industry with major concerns
will turn elsewhere for permanent change and correction.
There are a number of major concerns in this industry,
including the health and safety of horses, the health and
safety of jockeys, and the fact that this is the only industry
that is allowed by Congress to conduct interstate gambling to
the tune of approximately $15 billion. That is a tremendous
amount of money involved in an industry with little or no
accountability.
The National Football League suspends highly talented
players from games or even entire seasons for their abuse of
animals, like dogfighting or even for conduct that reflects
poorly on their sport. In horseracing, however, reports suggest
that individuals can get away with injecting horses with
illegal and legal drugs that harm the animals and simply get a
$2,000 fine or less. This is problematic. Why should people who
abuse horses be allowed to get away with it? They shouldn't.
As was discussed during the February hearing that this
subcommittee held on steroids and drug use in sports in
general, it is the integrity and honor of competition that is
at stake. The integrity of horseracing is at stake. It is time
for the industry as a whole to take a stand and end the abuse
of horses, whether that be through drugs or through
questionable breeding practices, which endangers both the
horses and the humans who ride them. Watching a horse like
Eight Belles who was cared for very well run a fantastic race
and then be euthanized during her cool-down because of
fractures in her ankles is deeply disturbing.
I look forward to hearing from all of our guests today. I
would like to extend a particular welcome to Dr. Lawrence Soma
from the New Bolton Center, which is in my legislative
district, congressional district. Your work on these issues is
greatly appreciated. I am delighted that you are here today to
provide us with testimony and insight on how we can best find
solutions to the existing problems in this industry.
In addition, I would like to extend my appreciation to
Randy Moss for his leadership on this issue.
Thank you to each of our distinguished witnesses for being
here today, for providing us with your insight and
recommendations on how to address these important concerns, and
I look forward to your testimony and yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I would like to introduce all of the witnesses and then
call on each in turn for a 5-minute presentation.
I want to also associate myself with Mr. Pitts' gratitude
to Mr. Whitfield for his leadership on this issue, and explain
that this hearing is completely bipartisan in terms of the
positions being taken by the Democrats and the Republicans on
this committee.
So I want to welcome you. And the first panel includes Alan
Marzelli, president and COO of the Jockey Club. The Jockey Club
is the breed registrar of all thoroughbreds in North America.
In this role the organization promulgates regulations and
standards on how a thoroughbred qualifies to be registered.
Richard Shapiro is the chairman of the California
Horseracing Board. California is the largest racing
jurisdiction in the United States, and Mr. Shapiro chairs the
body that regulates horseracing in that State.
Jack Van Berg, as you heard, is a trainer. Mr. Van Berg was
inducted into the Racing Hall of Fame in 1985 and is best known
for training the late great Alysheba, who retired as the
richest horse in the world in 1988.
Randy Moss, analyst, ABC and ESPN, is one of the leading
pundits on horseracing in America and currently works for ABC
Sports and ESPN. He has been covering horseracing for 30 years.
Arthur Hancock, III, is the owner-breeder at Stone Farm.
Mr. Hancock is a fourth-generation horseman, and is perhaps
most famous for owning and breeding 1989 Horse of the Year
Sunday Silence.
Jess Jackson is the owner-breeder at Stonestreet Stables.
Mr. Jackson of Kendall Jackson wine fame owns Curlin, who won
Horse of the Year honors for 2007. Mr. Jackson surprised the
racing world when he brought back Curlin to the track for his
4-year-old season.
There is a name plate up there, but someone is missing.
And we had expected Richard Dutrow. And I just would like
to note the empty space for him, the trainer for Kentucky Derby
and Preakness Stakes winner Big Brown. Apparently Mr. Dutrow
was too ill to travel to Washington, D.C., and will not testify
with our other witnesses today. Unfortunately Mr. Dutrow never
informed this committee of his illness, and despite numerous
attempts to reach Mr. Dutrow, he never notified anyone on
committee staff that he would not be attending this morning's
hearing. I am disappointed by his absence, and I am
disappointed that he did not feel the need to notify the
subcommittee directly of his decision. Given Mr. Dutrow's
stature and reputation in the sport, I think it would have been
a valuable addition to this public dialogue. I hope in the
future when Mr. Dutrow recovers from his illness, he will join
us and be part of the solution to clean up the sport of
horseracing.
I would like to remind all witnesses----
Mr. Stearns. Madam Chairman, a point of information?
Is it possible that we could submit questions to Mr. Dutrow
in his absence? Perhaps we could send questions that we have
and ask for his reply in anticipation of him coming back at a
later date.
Ms. Schakowsky. Well, as Mr. Whitfield just pointed out, we
may have another hearing, but I think that submitting questions
in writing and could become part of the official record. Well,
we will discuss afterwards how that would become part of the
official record.
Mr. Stearns. Speaking in light of the fact that he said he
would be here, meaning that he would comply, and the fact that
he hasn't shown up, I assume that he would be interested in
answering questions. So I would request that the committee put
together a letter with our questions on both sides and submit
them to him and see if he will reply.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK. We will certainly take that under
advisement. Thank you.
I want to remind all witnesses that your written statements
have been shared with committee members and submitted for the
record. And as I mentioned before, I would like to remind the
witnesses if they have opening statements to please take up to
no more than 5 minutes for their statements.
And we will begin with my left, your right, with our first
witness, Mr. Marzelli.
STATEMENT OF ALAN MARZELLI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, THE JOCKEY CLUB, NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Mr. Marzelli. Good morning, Chairman Schakowsky and members
of the Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here
today and to briefly share with you some information about the
Jockey Club.
At the outset I want to state that the Jockey Club shares
the concerns expressed by the members of this committee and is
committed to being an agent for change throughout this process.
The Jockey Club was formed in 1894, and it is the breed
registry for all thoroughbred horses in North America. We are
also a founding member of the International Studbook Committee,
which serves to coordinate the policies and practices of
studbook authorities around the world.
A key ingredient to accomplishing this is through the
development of the internationally accepted definition of a
thoroughbred as contained in Article 12 of the International
Agreement on Breeding, Racing, and Wagering. There are
presently 64 countries that are signatories to this important
article. As signatories, each studbook authority, including the
Jockey Club, incorporates the provisions of Article 12 into its
own rules.
Neither Article 12 nor our own rules themselves promote
specific attributes. To do so would be at best subjective and
potentially restrictive to fair trade and free-market
enterprise not only here, but around the world.
I would also state that Article 12 of the international
agreement is perhaps the best example of the global racing
community harmonizing the rules of different jurisdictions in
order to facilitate cross-border commerce. Curlin was mentioned
earlier. The rules that are in place around the world through
the International Studbook Committee are what permit a horse
like Curlin to travel internationally and be recognized as a
thoroughbred everywhere he goes.
Now, beyond our primary mission as keeper of the American
studbook, the Jockey Club has since our inception maintained a
leadership role in numerous and wide-ranging industry
initiatives. Time and time again the Jockey Club has devoted
very substantial efforts and resources to projects that we
believed in. The spring of 2008 was one of those times. The
tragic breakdown of Eight Belles at the conclusion of this
year's Kentucky Derby prompted the Jockey Club to announce the
creation of a Thoroughbred Safety Committee whose purpose is to
review every facet of equine health, including breeding
practices, medication, the rules of racing and track surfaces,
and to recommend actions to be taken by the industry to improve
the health and safety of thoroughbreds.
We have been meeting regularly since early May and, as you
may know, issued our first set of recommendations 2 days ago.
This wide-ranging set of recommendations includes a ban on
front toe grabs and other traction devices, reforms in the
equipment and usage of a riding crop by jockeys, and,
importantly, the adoption of the RMTC model rule to eliminate
anabolic steroids in the training and racing of thoroughbreds.
These recommendations have been endorsed and supported by a
wide cross-section of over 15 leading industry organizations.
We are confident that with this unified support, these
initial recommendations will be implemented in a timely
fashion. Specifically, we are confident that 2008 will be the
last year in which anabolic steroids will be permitted in our
sport during training and racing.
In closing, I must emphasize that the Thoroughbred Safety
Committee's work has just begun. Additional recommendations and
findings will be provided at our annual roundtable conference
in Saratoga Springs in mid-August, if not before. And the work
of the committee will continue beyond then as a standing
committee of the Jockey Club's board of stewards.
Specifically, the stewards of the Jockey Club and the
members of the Thoroughbred Safety Committee are of the belief
that the elimination of anabolic steroids is only a start. In
order to restore the trust and confidence in our support that
our fans deserve, in order to protect our equine athletes, and
in order to ensure the long-term health of the thoroughbred
breed, we must eliminate all performance-enhancing drugs from
the sport. We are committed to seeing this effort through, and
as evidenced by the strong show of support for our initial set
of recommendations, we are confident that many other
organizations in the industry share our beliefs.
Thank you for your attention, thank you again for your
interest, and I will be glad to answer any questions you have.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marzelli follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.005
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Shapiro.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD SHAPIRO, CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA HORSERACING
BOARD, CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Shapiro. Madam Chairwoman and Members, for three
generations my family has been involved in nearly every aspect
of this sport. I have operated a racetrack, competed as a
harness driver, and have owned and bred thoroughbreds for
racing. Currently I am the chairman of the California
Horseracing Board.
I would first like to acknowledge the thousands of
dedicated horsemen and horsewomen who keep this beautiful sport
alive. Horseracing is a $26 billion-a-year industry, directly
providing nearly 400,000 jobs and satisfying careers from the
inner city to rural America. As one of the first and oldest
forms of legalized gambling in the United States, horseracing
occupies a special place in our history and our culture.
Nevertheless, I have witnessed the changes and accept the
challenges that all of us in this industry now address every
day. How do we help our sport survive and maintain its
integrity in this era of enormous competition from Indian
casinos, card clubs, new lottery games, and the potential
spread of legalized Internet gambling?
We are in the midst of transforming our ivy-covered brick-
and-mortar racing venues into the flashy Web graphics of live
sports telecasting and entertainment, entertainment that people
bet on. We must carefully balance the need to attract newer and
younger casual fans while satisfying our regular patrons who
enjoy our game and keep these venues alive. And we must never
lose our vision or neglect our responsibility to care for the
horses that people come to see, the beautiful creatures that
make it all possible and whose health and welfare must always
be our prime concern.
As the tragic death of Eight Belles after the Kentucky
Derby reminded us, horses are fragile, and the game can be
cruel. But more is in operation here, and the best minds of the
industry are closely examining why it is the breed appears to
be weakening. In 1948, Citation won 19 of 20 starts as a 3-year
old, including the Triple Crown. That same year he beat older
horses and won at every distance from 6 furlongs to 2 miles.
This year the Kentucky Derby was won by a horse that had only
raced three times and now may race only twice more, if at all.
According to the Jockey Club, horses raced on average 6.3
times in 2007, down from a peak in 1960 of 11.3 times, and this
despite diagnostic and veterinary medicine that rivals the
human care offered at the Nation's best hospitals and clinics.
A long-time track vet once testified 20 years ago we had twice
the horses and half the vets; now we have twice the vets and
half the horses. Today it is not uncommon for some vets to
examine their patients for free and charge only for the
medications they prescribe, an inherent conflict of interest.
Without a doubt, medication has changed our sport and
presented us with profound challenges that threaten the game
itself. For the sake of speed and for having the fastest horse
on the first Saturday in May, fewer horses are bred for
durability, longevity and stamina. We push 2-year-olds onto the
track before many can handle the rigors of racing. The game has
become more horse breeding than horseracing. To give you a
personal example, my family bred and owned the first horse to
earn $1 million in California. His name was Native Diver. He
raced 81 times and won 34 stakes races, a record that still
stands today 40 years later. Today the career of a stakes-
caliber horse is considered long if he runs 25 times before
retirement.
Over the past 40 years, we have traded the time-tested
regimen of hay, oats, and water for a virtual pharmacopoeia--
Lasix, Butazolidin, Clenbuterol--that has created, as one
commentator recently noted, the chemical horse. After banning
it as a performance enhancer, racing later permitted the
widespread use of Clenbuterol, a drug originally marketed to
fatten cattle, after its proponents claimed nothing else worked
as well to clear out a horse's respiratory system. Despite
evidence suggesting that this drug can alter the muscle mass of
the heart, it is commonly used in racing.
And we have created the chemical horse in the name of
medicine and therapy, when too often it has been done to gain a
competitive advantage. How else do we explain the widespread
use of steroids on horses? As Dr. Donald Catlin, whose tests
are used by the U.S. Olympic Committee, said recently, quote,
``we have seen how anabolic steroids work in humans. It is
going to work the same way in horses,'' end quote.
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me just note for you that your time is
up. So if you could just take a minute to wrap up, that would
be great.
Mr. Shapiro. Clearly there is no place for anabolic
steroids. But there is one issue larger than all the others.
Our industry is a chorus of many voices and not always singing
from the same music. We have no central governance, no uniform
policy rules and laws that ensure an even playing field in all
respects. Our structure is dysfunctional and must become
functional.
I submit we need a national racing charter; one uniform set
of rules and policies that governs all who choose to enjoy this
sport. The regulatory scheme to prevent the use of performance-
enhancing medication is only as good as the ability to find and
detect the drugs in use. More research and more scientific
study is needed now.
We must modernize the way the game is regulated. I do not
believe a national regulatory scheme should be imposed. It is
not my preference unless it is the last resort. The industry
has had decades to find a way for self-uniform governance, and
it has not happened. If the industry can't do it, we should all
welcome it. I submit we need a national racing commission. I
submit to retain its fans, to prosper, racing must act now.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.014
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Van Berg.
STATEMENT OF JACK VAN BERG, TRAINER, INGLEWOOD, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Van Berg. Thank you.
Good morning Chairwoman Schakowsky, all the Members, my
fellow from Nebraska over there. I hope he didn't work for me
back them days. He would think I was mean.
In order to bring integrity back to the sport of
horseracing, the first and the most important thing should be
to implement the most sophisticated drug testing available. It
should be funded by a small percentage of the simulcast money,
approximately one-eighth of 1 percent. Three labs should
conduct the testing: one in the West, one in the East, one in
the Midwest. It would be the responsibility of the trainer or
his representative to monitor the collection of the sample
after the race. Half of the test sample would be immediately
frozen and put in a locker that contains two keys, one for the
lab technician and one for the trainer. If the test--if the
other half sent in, if the test comes back positive, then they
go unlock it together to go to one of the other labs and have
it taken. If the test is positive, then they should face a
stiff penalty be imposed on them instead of a slap on the hand.
But they have got to have the money to do the finest testing
that can possibly be made.
As for medication, it would be in the best interest of this
grand sport and these grand equine athletes to abolish any and
all medications. This would mean no race-day thresholds of
Lasix, Bute, steroids, or any other medication. The present
rule permitting the use of steroids and other drugs have
compromised the integrity of horseracing and has been a major
factor in attendance and for interest falling to an all-time
low. The crowds, most of these racetracks now, you can shoot a
cannon through them and can't hit anybody.
Steroids given to these nonconsenting athletes, the time
they need to develop, the horse can't tell you that he doesn't
want to take them. Your football players, baseball players, and
all people can say, no, I don't take them, that is their
privilege. But the horse hasn't got that. Steroids given to
young horses can cause an unnatural increase in muscle mass and
makes them much heavier than their still-maturing bone
structure. They just get so heavy, and on their young bones
that haven't matured yet, they just can't take it. But as my
father once said, fat is the best color in the world, so when
they go to the auction, the bigger and better and bulkier they
look, the better they sell. Let the horse develop on his own,
and the trainer should be enough horseman to know when he has
matured and ready to proceed in more massive training and pick
him up.
As for racing surfaces, they should be a good sandy loam
and maintained for the soft cushion. I do not think it helps
our fans to be concerned how fast the race is run. The safety
of the horse should be the priority, not how fast the track is.
On big days most racetracks see how fast they can get the
track. The surface should be maintained at the same depth at
all times.
I would like to thank all of you for listening to the
little bit I have to say. I will be happy to answer any
questions that anybody desires. Anything that I can do to help
with this great sport and the integrity of it and these great
athletes I will be happy to. Thank you.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Berg follows:]
Statement of Jack Van Berg
In order to bring integrity back to the great sport of
horse racing, the first and most important act should be to
implement the most sophisticated drug testing available. It
should be funded by a small percentage of the simulcast money:
approximately one-eighth of one percent. Three labs should
conduct the testing-one in the west: one in the east; one in
the Midwest. It would be the responsibility of the trainer, or
his representative to monitor the collection of the sample(s)
after the race. Half of the test sample should be immediately
frozen and put in a locker that requires two keys to open. One
key should be held by the trainer and another one held by the
lab technician. The other half of the sample should be sent to
the designated lab and tested. If this sample is positive, then
the trainers and lab technician would unlock the other half of
the sample and send it to one of the other designated labs. If
the sample is also positive, then very strict penalties should
be imposed.
As for medication, it would be in the best interest of this
grand sport and these grand equine athletes to abolish any and
all medications. This would mean no race day threshold levels
of Lasix, Bute, Steroids, or any other medication. The present
rule permitting the use of steroids and other drugs have
comprised the integrity of horse racing and has been a major
factor in attendance and for interest falling to an all time
low. Steroids do not give these ``non-consenting'' athletes the
time they need to develop and mature. Steroids given to young
horses, they cause an unnatural increase in muscle mass and
make them heavier than their still maturing bone structure can
often tolerate. Let the horse develop on his own and the
trainer should be enough of a horseman to know when he has
matured.
As for racing surfaces, they should be a good sandy loam
and maintained for the soft cushion. I do not think it helps
for fans to be concerned about how fast a race is run. The
safety of the horse should be the priority and not how fast the
track is. On big days, most race tracks see how fast they can
get the track. The surface should be maintained at the same
depth at all times.
I would like to thank everyone for inviting me to testify
before the House Committee. The sport of Horse Racing is one of
the greatest sports of all times. I will always be willing to
do whatever I can to bring back the greatness and integrity of
this great sport.
----------
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Moss.
STATEMENT OF RANDY MOSS, ANALYST, ESPN
Mr. Moss. Thank you Vice Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking
Member Whitfield, and other members of the subcommittee. I am
not Randy Moss, the football player. I have not owned, bred,
trained, or ridden racehorses. I am not a veterinarian. But I
do have 30-plus years around racing in various capacities, and
as a TV analyst for ESPN and ABC, I think I have a degree of
objectivity here. As Fred Thompson might say, I don't have a
dog in this hunt, but I think I know when the dog is barking up
the wrong tree, and I am not afraid to express opinions on how
the hunt should be conducted.
And let me add another voice to the chorus you have already
heard. One problem in this sport that can be dealt with
immediately is American racing's love affair with medication.
No other country in the world has permitted thoroughbreds to
legally race with as many drugs in their systems, and many
believe the soundness of the breed has been profoundly affected
in a negative way. The Racing Medication and Testing Consortium
that you will hear about, the RMTC, is doing admirable work in
medication reform, but I believe their proposals could be taken
one step further by returning American racing to running horses
with nothing in their systems but good old-fashioned hay, oats
and water; no traces of Butazolidin, Banamine, steroids or
Lasix, turning back the clock on the culture of drugs and doing
what is right by the Sport of Kings and what is right for the
horses themselves.
As Jack said, at the same time racing also needs to create
funding mechanisms to streamline and enhance drug testing for
illegal medications as well. America has its Kentucky Derby,
the greatest race in the world. We have our Breeder's Cup, the
greatest day of racing in the world. But regrettably our racing
is also known worldwide for its obsession with and reliance on
drugs, and this must change.
Another major point I want to stress that has already been
mentioned is the dysfunctional manner in which American racing
is currently being conducted. Imagine if the NFL permitted
every State to field as many pro football teams as it wanted,
to play as many games as it wanted all year round, to create
different rules of play in each State with no National League
guidelines to speak of. Incredibly enough this is how American
racing is currently being played.
Regulatory power is in the hands of 38 racing States with
38 sets of rules, 38 different priorities that typically
consider only the interest of those respective States and not
the overall health of the game as a whole. American racing has
no central authority with the power to do what the NFL or the
NBA or Major League Baseball has, to poll its members and to
mandate policies with the long-term interest of the sport in
mind.
This not only makes problems in racing notoriously
difficult to rectify, the sport is cannibalizing itself in the
process with cutthroat competition among racetracks that
diminishes greatly the quality of racing and also puts too much
pressure on the horses themselves.
It is true that few in racing, as I have seen, are eager to
see Federal involvement. And I would imagine that there are
more than a few in the Federal Government that don't really
want to be in the horseracing business, although, if I recall,
Thomas Jefferson once had a stable of racehorses that I think
was actually on the grounds of the White House.
But more to the point, the States that have been entrusted
with regulating horseracing have proven unable and unwilling,
more importantly, to rectify many of the problems. And however
a national focus can be accomplished, this issue desperately
needs a solution. When horseracing had a monopoly as the only
legal gambling game around, none of this mattered, but today
racing faces intense competition for the gambling and
entertainment dollar. It needs a single-minded and effective
strategy in the marketplace and not 38 different strategies.
Thoroughbred racing, in my opinion, is a wonderful sport
with a rich tradition. Some of that tradition has often meant
resistance to change. But now with the public outcry, the media
scrutiny over the deaths of Eight Belles and Barbaro, the
prevailing attitude within racing, and this is a good sign, is
that significant change must occur. This is an unprecedented
opportunity to set a new course in thoroughbred racing. Racing
needs to capitalize on it, and the public rightly expects
nothing less.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moss follows:]
Statement of Randy Moss
Thank you, Vice-Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member
Whitfield, and Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Randy Moss. I work as a horse racing analyst and
reporter for ESPN and ABC Sports.
I'm not the football player. I also have never trained
racehorses, have never ridden racehorses, and I have had no
veterinary training. I have been asked to join today's
discussion because I have been close to thoroughbred racing for
30 years, as a newspaper reporter, handicapper and freelance
writer; through brief stints as a racetrack manager, jockey
agent and publicist; and for the last decade in television.
Because of these positions, I have had extensive
conversations with trainers, jockeys, owners, breeders, racing
executives, racing administrators, and veterinarians about a
variety of issues, some of which are being discussed here. Just
as importantly, I have a regular dialogue with horseplayers,
the bettors who are the lifeblood of horse racing but whose
opinions are too often overlooked.
As a result of all this, I have developed plenty of my own
opinions along the way that--for better or worse--I seldom
hesitate to express.
For starters, one opinion is that thoroughbred racing
occupies a unique position in sports--combining tradition,
excitement, pageantry, the majesty of one of the world's most
beautiful creatures, and, of course, gambling.
But in one respect, thoroughbred racing is no different
than the NFL, NBA or major league baseball: each sport has
problems and challenges that must be confronted head-on for
that sport to thrive.
And thoroughbred racing has its share of issues. Some can
be easily corrected and others can't. But this is no time for a
head-in-sand approach.
The way I see it, the single biggest dilemma facing this
sport is the haphazard and dysfunctional manner in which racing
is scheduled and administrated.
Unlike other sports, racing has no ``league office'' with
power to make decisions for the long-term best interests of the
sport. Instead, racing rules and racing dates are set by
politically-appointed racing commissioners in each state, whose
decisions are typically motivated by what they perceive to be
best for that particular state and often are at odds with the
best interests of the sport as a whole.
Imagine if the NFL were set up to permit each state to
field as many pro teams as it wanted, play as many games as it
wanted all year long, and set its own individual football rules
with no enforceable league guidelines. In modern-day America,
horse racing has always been set up in this fashion.
During the glory days of racing, when horse racing was
practically the only outlet for legal gambling, it didn't
matter. In that scenario, racing was almost impossible to screw
up.
But now, racing faces intense competition for the gambling
and entertainment dollar. At a time when the sport desperately
needs a single-minded and consistent strategy in the
marketplace, it has 38 racing states with 38 sets of rules and
38 different priorities. And that is a recipe for disaster.
Thoroughbred racing is cannibalizing itself. This Saturday
alone racing will be conducted at Belmont Park on Long Island;
at Charles Town and Mountaineer Park, both in West Virginia; at
Delaware Park; at Colonial Downs in nearby Virginia; at Laurel
Park just across the border in Maryland; at Finger Lakes in
upstate New York; at Monmouth Park in New Jersey; at Penn
National, Philadelphia Park, and Presque Isle Downs, all in
Pennsylvania; and at Suffolk Downs in Massachussetts. And these
are only the racetracks in the Northeast region of the country.
Incredibly, each track has determined that this type of
scheduling is best for itself and its horsemen, even though
these tracks are essentially competing for the same horses.
There aren't enough good horses to go around, and thus the
quality of racing at each track is cheapened, average field
sizes in the best races are reduced, and consequently
frustrated horseplayers bet less money.
At tracks such as Saratoga Race Course, Keeneland Race
Course, and Del Mar, the sport thrives on short boutique racing
seasons that create a festival atmosphere and yearly
anticipation. Unfortunately, too many other tracks are content
to grind out a profit through quantity instead of quality, with
endless cards of cheap races run for a dwindling fan base.
Horsemen are complicit in this, as well, since they typically
resist efforts to reduce racing dates, as do state racing
commissioners, who are often reluctant to endorse less tax
revenue today in exchange for a more positive long-range
outlook.
Another effect of these extended racing seasons is the
pressure it puts on horses, especially in areas of intense
track-to-track competition such as the Northeast. In a struggle
to fill races, racetracks are forced to pressure trainers to
run horses more frequently than they might otherwise feel
comfortable doing.
Thoroughbred racing in America is proof that there can
indeed be too much of a good thing.
Racing's lack of a powerful central authority is also a
primary reason for medication controversies currently engulfing
the sport. In the 1970s, American horsemen began convincing
state authorities that legalization of raceday medications
would help them run horses more frequently in support of
racetracks that were scheduling ever-longer racing seasons.
Because longer racing seasons pitted tracks against each other
in intense competition for horses, every state eventually
conceded to the easing of medication restrictions so as not to
be at a competitive disadvantage with other states. Thus
America became the only racing country in the world to permit
raceday use of drugs such as analgesic Butazolidin and diuretic
Lasix, which lowers blood pressure and is believed by many to
reduce the occurance and severity of the EIPH (exercise-
inducted pulmonary hemorrhaging) that hampers the breathing of
some racehorses.
Included among accepted raceday medications were anabolic
steroids such as Winstrol, which is still legal in 28 racing
states. Steroids would eventually gain widespread use as an
appetite stimulant and to help horses recover more quickly from
the effects of exercise and put on muscle mass.
But well before the highly-publicized breakdowns of Barbaro
and Eight Belles, many within the sport were becoming convinced
that lax medication rules were having a negative rather than
positive effect on American racing.
Despite the initial arguments that medication would enable
horses to race more often, the opposite happened. From 1975 to
2007, average starts per horse per year dropped a staggering
62%--from 10.23 to an all-time low of 6.31 last year.
The vast majority of trainers now complain that their
horses have become much more fragile. Potential explanations of
this perceived increased fragility are numerous and
complicated, including the possibilities that medication has
weakened the gene pool and that commercial breeding practices
driven by the marketplace have shifted too much toward
brilliance rather than durability.
At the same time, raceday use of Lasix has been allowed to
spiral out of control--even though the drug is banned by the
World Anti-Doping Agency because it is allegedly used to mask
the presence of more powerful illegal stimulants. Of the 92
horses entered to run today at Belmont Park, 88 were designated
to run on Lasix. This is not what was originally intended.
Now for the good news: the Racing Medication and Testing
Consortium (RMTC) was founded in 2002 and under the guidance of
Dr. Scot Waterman it has made great strides in medication
reform and recommended penalties for drug offenders. Owners and
trainers have become frustrated and confused at the different
medication guidelines for various states, and they have
gradually begun to embrace uniform rules suggestions developed
by the RMTC, even though these rules are rolling back raceday
medication use considerably. Now, according to Waterman, the
primary difference between medication rules in the U.S. and
Europe is in the use of Lasix and steroids. The RMTC is
recommending strong restrictions on steroids, and many states
are listening.
One of the holdups, as always, is funding. The RMTC needs
continued--and additional--funding to continue its good work.
The sport needs to find the revenue to consolidate its 18
testing laboratories and enhance testing procedures for items
such as EPO, or Epogen, which is lesser-known by the public but
is perceived to enhance performance much more than steroids.
Also, in the wake of the Eight Belles tragedy, the
Thoroughbred Safety Committee was formed to tackle the tough
issues regarding medication, breeding practices and track
surfaces. The committee's initial recommendations issued
Tuesday regarding steroids, safety whips and proper racing
shoes have met with widespread praise, and more recommendations
are to come. However, the lack of a central racing authority
forces the Thoroughbred Safety Committee and other industry
leaders to announce that they ``support,'' ``strongly
support,'' ``endorse,'' ``urge,'' ``encourage'' and otherwise
beg and plead for the various racing states to adopt the
changes. The reason for this language is obvious: the sport has
no power to ``require'' that changes be made. In the current
industry framework, any state that wishes to thumb its nose at
such recommendations is free to do so, with no official
ramifications.
After the one-two punches of Barbaro in 2006 and this
year's Kentucky Derby, mainstream media began a closer
examination of thoroughbred racing. The public was concerned
about the humaneness of the sport, and too often were appalled
at what they were seeing. Racing can and must do better. But
remember that these issues being debated existed long before
the demise of Barbaro and Eight Belles, but the sport lacked a
system as well as a desire to implement needed changes. The
attention now being focused on these issues, by this committee
as well as the public, now gives horse racing a rare
opportunity to conquer its inefficiencies and pull together in
a positive direction.
And along with the opportunity comes a sober
responsibility: this is something the sport can ill afford to
mess up.
Some conclusions:
1) Most in the sport have no desire for federal regulation
of horse racing. But through whatever means it can be
accomplished, thoroughbred racing desperately needs a strong
central authority with regulatory power to make binding
decisions necessary for the short- and long-term best interests
of the sport.
2) The explosion of racing dates must be reversed--and in
some cases dramatically--perhaps through the formation of a
league of world-class U.S. racetracks with coordinated racing
dates, stakes schedules and simulcasting rates.
3) The use of Lasix as a raceday medication should be
abolished. At the very least, no horse that has ever competed
with Lasix or any other race-day medication should be allowed
to propagate as a sire or broodmare in order to restore the
integrity of the thoroughbred genetic pool. In addition, all
graded stakes races--the designation given to the country's
premier stakes--should be run with no raceday medication.
4) The Thoroughbred Safety Committee's recommendations on
steroids, whips, and proper racing shoes should be immediately
instituted.
5) Nationwide funding mechanisms must be instituted to:
ensure the RMTC's continued beneficial research and
recommendations, including development of additional post-race
tests for illegal drugs; consolidate the country's 18
laboratories used for post-race testing into one or two
``superlabs'' with capabilities and resources to conduct
testing for all prohibited substances; pay for enforcement of
drug penalties, including legal costs associated with appeals.
6) The study of racetrack surfaces must continue to
determine if synthetic surfaces actually reduce instances of
catastrophic injury in thoroughbreds as compared to well-
maintained dirt surfaces.
7) Rules should be instituted to hold veterinarians
accountable in drug offenses as well as the trainers who employ
them.
8) The U.S. should convene a summit with other major racing
countries to develop regulations that could extend the careers
of top racehorses, i.e., a rule requiring all sires or
broodmares to be at least 5 years of age to conceive a
registered thoroughbred racehorse.
----------
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Hancock.
STATEMENT OF ARTHUR HANCOCK, PRESIDENT, STONE FARM, PARIS,
KENTUCKY
Mr. Hancock. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Schakowsky, and
Ranking Member Whitfield and members of the subcommittee. I am
a fourth-generation horseman, and I have children who are
interested in this way of life, and I hope to protect it for
them, and that is why I am here.
There are many wonderful aspects about the horse business:
the beautiful farms, the rich tradition, the pageantry, the
excitement of competition, the thrill of victory. But there are
many negatives in the industry that I am concerned about, such
as inbreeding, overbreeding, oversupply, operations on young
foals which are not required to be divulged, bribing at
auctions, and other issues which we need to fix ourselves. But
my primary worry and the main issue which concerns me is the
complete lack of uniformity on many issues, specifically the
permissive medication policies that vary from State to State
and the catastrophic result that this medication is wreaking
upon our industry.
There are 38 racing jurisdictions in the United States, and
they all have their own rules. As you know from recent stories
in the news, use of steroids is rampant, and the rules
governing its use vary from State to State.
So why are we in this situation, and how can it be
remedied? What is this thoroughbred industry? It is a
conglomeration of different entities, each of which has its own
function as well as its own agenda. They are the breeders, the
owners, the veterinarians, the trainers, the jockeys, the
racetracks, and all of their affiliated organizations. It is a
mega agribusiness worth billions of dollars that employs
thousands of people who are represented by all of these
separate and different entities. There is TOBA, the Jockey
Club, the Jockey's Guild, the NTRA, the Breeder's Cup, the
American Horse Council, the AAEP, the HBPA, the RCI, and the
racing commissions of 38 different States. They are like
fiefdoms, and they each have their own Nero-like CEO who
envisions himself as the savior of racing and usually doesn't
even own a horse.
As I see it, the real problem with the thoroughbred
industry is that nobody is in charge. We are a rudderless ship,
and the way we are going, we will all end up on the rocks. It
is impossible for us to govern and regulate ourselves. We are
simply too fragmented and too diverse. Not one of these groups
has the power to bring uniformity and integrity to our sport.
In my opinion, only the Federal Racing Commission or
Commissioner can save us from ourselves.
Congressman Ed Whitfield of Kentucky says that the
Horseracing Act of 1978 is a vehicle through which we may
remedy this situation. Each State can be controlled by the
Federal Government, because if the State does not comply with
the rules, the racing signal can be cut off. For instance, if
there is a Federal ban on steroids, and the State does not
comply, it would lose its signal.
I have said for years that we must remove drugs from our
game. In 1960, horses made 11.3 starts a year; last year they
made 6.31 starts. This is a drop of 44 percent, and it is a
startling statistic which shows that the breed is becoming
softer and weaker. This leads one to the inescapable conclusion
that there will be more frequent and more severe catastrophic
injuries in the future, and that these will do us irreparable
harm irregardless of the track's surface. It is a vicious
cycle. Chemical horses produce chemical babies. Performance-
enhancing drugs must be banned if we are going to survive as an
industry and if thoroughbreds are going to survive as a robust
breed. Believe me, we are in peril.
I am reminded of a story. There was once a large, fine
house, and a lot of mice lived in there, and they had lots of
cheeses, but the owner got a cat, and the mice didn't know what
to do. Somebody made the brilliant suggestion that they put a
bell on the cat, and they thought that was a great idea. Oh,
good, we will put a bell on the cat. Then somebody came up and
said, one of the mice said, but who is going to be the one to
put the bell on the cat?
This is our dilemma, ladies and gentlemen. We have no one
to put the bell on the cat. It is impossible for us. The
fiefdoms cannot come together, and yet they will violently
object to the prospect of any infringements upon their domains.
Our only hope is the Federal Racing Commissioner or Commission,
and I have said this since 1990.
In the early 1980s, Senator Mathias of Maryland spoke to
the Jockey Club Roundtable in Saratoga and warned us to clean
up our act, or the government would do it for us. The industry
mobilized, went to Washington and said we would do it
ourselves, and the results speak for themselves. That was 28
years and hundreds of committee meetings ago, and things have
gotten worse, not better. It never happened and never will
unless you mandate through the Horseracing Act that we have the
means to bell the cat.
Professional basketball, what would it be without a
commissioner, without the NBA, or professional football without
the NFL, or baseball without a commissioner?
Mr. Rush. Mr. Hancock, your time is expired, so if you
could just wrap it up.
Mr. Hancock. OK. Let me just close with a point Winston
Churchill wrote. He said:
``Who is in charge of the clattering train,
The carriages creak and the couplets strain.
And the pace is fast and the points are near,
But sleep has deadened the driver's ear.
And the whistle shrieks through the night in vain,
For death is in charge of the clattering train.''
Ladies and gentlemen, death is not in charge of our
business yet, but he is on board. Please give us an engineer.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hancock follows:]
Statement of Arthur Hancock
Good morning, honored Members of Congress.
I am here before you because I am gravely concerned about
the future of the Thoroughbred industry. I am a fourth
generation breeder and owner and I also have children who are
interested in this way of life.
There are many wonderful aspects about the horse business--
the tradition, the pageantry, the competition, and the thrill
of victory--but there are many negatives in the industry that I
am concerned about such as inbreeding, over breeding,
oversupply, operations on young foals which are not required to
be divulged, bribing at auctions, and other issues which we
have the means, if not the desire, to rectify. But my primary
worry and the main issue which concerns me is the complete lack
of uniformity on many issues; specifically, the permissive
medication policies that vary from state to state, and the
catastrophic results that this medication is wreaking upon our
industry.
There are 38 racing jurisdictions in the United States and
they all have their own rules. As you know from recent stories
in the news, use of steroids is rampant and also varies from
State to State.
So, why are we in this situation, and how can it be
remedied? What is this Thoroughbred industry? It is a
conglomeration of different entities, each of which has its own
function as well as its own agenda. There are the breeders, the
owners, the veterinarians, the trainers, the jockeys, the race
tracks, and all of their affiliated organizations. It is a mega
agri-business worth billions of dollars that employs thousands
of people who are represented by these separate entities. There
is T.O.B.A. (Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association), The
Jockey Club, the Jockey's Guild, the N.T.R.A. (National
Thoroughbred Racing Association), the Breeders' Cup, the
American Horse Council, the A.A.E.P (American Association of
Equine Practitioners), the H.B.P.A (Horsemen's Benevolent
Protective Association), the R.C.I. (Racing Commissioners
International), and the racing commissions of 38 different
racing jurisdictions. All of these fiefdoms have their own
Nero-like CEOs, each of whom envisions himself as the savior of
racing and most of whom don't even own a horse.
As I see it, the real problem with the Thoroughbred
industry is that nobody is in charge. We are a rudderless ship,
and the way we are going, we will end up on the rocks. It is
impossible for us to govern and regulate ourselves. We are too
fragmented and too diverse. In my opinion, only a Federal
racing commission or commissioner can save us from ourselves.
Congressman Whitfield of Kentucky says that the Horse
Racing Act of 1978 is the vehicle through which we can remedy
the situation. Each state can be controlled by the Federal
Government because if it does not comply with the rules, its
racing signal can be cut off. For instance, if there is a
Federal ban on steroids and a state does not comply, it would
lose its signal.
I have said for years that we must remove drugs from our
game. In 1960, horses made 11.3 starts per year and in 2007
they made 6.31 starts per year. This is a dramatic drop of 44%
and is a startling statistic which shows that the breed is
becoming softer and weaker. This leads one to the inescapable
conclusion that there will be more frequent and severe
catastrophic injuries in the future. These will do us
irreparable harm. It is a vicious cycle. Chemical horses
produce chemical babies. Drugs must be banned if we are going
to survive as an industry and if thoroughbreds are going to
survive as a robust breed. Believe me, we are in peril.
I am reminded of a story. There was once a large fine house
wherein lived a number of mice. There were plenty of scraps of
fine cheeses, breads and cakes, and the mice flourished. Then
the owner decided to get a cat and this cat wreaked havoc on
the mice and their comfortable lifestyle. All of the mice
convened in an effort to find a solution to this life-
threatening problem, and they decided to put a bell on the cat.
This was considered to be a wonderful idea and was hailed
throughout mousedom. Then one of the mice said, ``But who will
be the one to put the bell on the cat?''
That is our dilemma: we have no one to put the bell on the
cat. It is impossible for us, and we cannot do it. Our only
hope is a federal racing commissioner or commission, and I said
this publicly in 1990.
In the early eighties, Senator Mathias of Maryland spoke to
The Jockey Club Round Table in Saratoga and warned us to clean
up our act or the government would do it for us. The industry
mobilized and went to Washington and said it would do it..and
the results speak for themselves. That was twenty eight years
and hundreds of committee meetings ago. It never happened and
will not happen in another 28 years unless you mandate through
the Horseracing Act of 1978 that we have the means to bell the
cat. Where would car racing be without NASCAR, professional
basketball without the NBA, professional football without the
NFL and AFL, or baseball without a commissioner?
Some years ago, baseball had a problem with steroids and
because of a federal inquiry it has now cleaned up its act, yet
baseball has a commissioner.
So, why can't we do something about the drug situation on
our own? The answer is, there is big money behind these drugs
and there is a lot of pressure to continue with the status quo.
When I worked at the race track in 1966, the only time the
veterinarian came to the barn was to check the horse on race
day or if he was sick. Now, they are there every day, and
veterinary bills for owners can run over $1,000.00 a month on a
single horse. Last year, I told a veterinarian that I did not
want my horses to get any medication unless they were sick and
he replied, ``You want to win races, don't you Arthur?''
Now I don't mean to say that all race track veterinarians
are bad people and I don't in any way mean to disparage them. I
respect them. The drugs they give a horse are for the most part
legal, although there are some who will use the masking power
of legal drugs to mask other more sinister and illegal
substances. For instance, cobra venom was recently discovered
in the possession of a trainer and it was given to him by his
veterinarian. If evil can exist, it will. If evil is permitted,
it will prevail. America, by the way, is the only nation on
this planet which permits the use of most of these medications.
Steroids are banned in every other country.
The drug issue is destroying public confidence as well as
the breed. People wonder why we haven't had a Triple Crown
winner since the seventies. Well, when a horse gets Lasix in
the Kentucky Derby and loses 30 to 40 pounds and the same thing
happens in the Preakness 2 weeks later, how can he be at full
strength for the Belmont where he gets it again; all of this in
the span of 5 weeks, and Lasix is not the only drug the horse
gets. He may get steroids and many other drugs, like
butazolidin.
So, I am convinced and terrified that we are losing our
industry, the public confidence, and the American breed called
the Thoroughbred. The horse is the star. He is our show, and
look what we are doing to him. Please help us right these
wrongs. Let us remember that the definition of insanity is
repeating the same behavior over and over again expecting
different results. Let us have zero tolerance and a national
lab for testing. Any expense to create integrity and save the
breed would be cheap. Ben Johnson said that nothing can be
great unless it is right. Please help us make horse racing
right and great again. The very survival of our industry is at
stake here, ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to close with a poem written by the late
Winston Churchill.
``Who is in charge of the clattering train,
The carriages creak and couplets strain.
And the pace is fast and the points are near,
But sleep has deadened the driver's ear.
And the whistle shrieks through the night in vain,
For death is in charge of the clattering train.''
Thank you for listening to me. Your time and efforts are
deeply appreciated and it has been a privilege and honor for me
to appear before you.
Thank you, and good day.
----------
Mr. Schakowsky. Mr. Jackson.
STATEMENT OF JESS STONESTREET JACKSON, STONESTREET FARM,
GEYSERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Jackson. Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member
Whitfield, members of the committee, as you know, I am an
advocate for reform, probably one of the more outspoken, and
the best of the advocates for reform are sitting here at this
table. I commend you on your wisdom in choosing to open the
dialogue and deal with the problem.
I am Jess Jackson, proprietor of a winery called Kendall
Jackson, but more recently returned to thoroughbred racing. I
own Stonestreet Farms, with farms in Kentucky, Florida, and
California. I have stables. One of the 60 horses we are
training and running right now is Curlin, the world champion. I
am very proud of him. Curlin represents a horse that can run
without drugs, not that he didn't in the past, but we changed
that, and when he went to Dubai, he won without drugs. Dubai
does not tolerate drugs.
We appreciate the opportunity, my family, to address you
today. I am an eighth-generation horseman. My great-great-
grandfather ran the King Ranch after Captain King died in
Texas. I have been around horses since I was 6 years old, and I
saw Sea Biscuit run when I was 9 years old. I have seen a lot.
I was one of the voices to oppose Bute when it came in in the
1950s and 1960s.
The vast majority of the people in our business are honest,
hard-working and wish that the change in the industry would
happen. They have no leadership. None. Mr. Hancock explained
that to you. We have so many diverse, disparate princedoms and
fiefdoms in the industry that we can't organize. If you raise a
point on one industry, somebody else will oppose it.
I believe that in Congress, if you raise amendments or
bring leadership, you will have opposition from parts of the
industry. That always happens. We always say we can do it
ourselves. We always say we can plan. We need to study it more.
We are experts at delay. We never get it done. We need
leadership and help.
Your concerns are very well founded. I believe we need
Congress to take an active role in two specific areas
immediately. First, on drugs: ban them. For centuries horses
ran without drugs. Drugs are not needed to run thoroughbred
horses. The competition between trainers, when one is convinced
by a veterinarian to enhance the performance of his horse, the
others want to have a fair chance against that competition, and
so it is like a plague, it spreads.
We have to also discipline the veterinarians who supply the
drugs. Why do we arrest the user and discipline him with a slap
on the hand when the real problem comes from the seller?
We have to deal with it bluntly. I am against drugs. We
need uniform standards. We need new laboratories to test. And
we need zero tolerance of drugs.
Again, for centuries, horses ran without drugs. We don't
need Lasix. We don't need Bute. We certainly don't need
steroids or enhancers. We don't even need coffee. The horse can
run.
And he runs naturally. He wants to run. That magnificent
animal lives to run. Just watch a young foal in the field about
sundown when he is getting ready for bed. The last thing he
does is run madly around the entire pasture.
Drugs mask other drugs. Don't think that an aspirin might
not mask another designer drug. It can; we don't know. We can't
keep up our science with enough advancement to answer all of
the designer drugs that they are creating out there for humans
as well as horses.
And the ethics of dealing with an animal shows the ethics
of the human. We need to have ethics, honesty, and trust in
this industry.
My second point is that Congress should eliminate two words
in the Interstate Horse Racing Act. As presently written, the
IHA provides that a host racing association must have an
agreement with the, quote, ``horsemen's group,'' which is
defined as the group which represents the majority of owners
and trainers. Take out those two words, ``and trainers.''
The trainers work for owners. Jockeys work for owners. The
horse is owned by the owners. The owners are the lifeblood of
the industry. Why give the power to an agent to commit the
owners?
Ms. Schakowsky. Let me just call to your attention your
time is up. So if you could wrap up, we would appreciate it.
Mr. Jackson. All right, well, OK.
The IHA needs to be amended; it truly does. The trainer is
under the thumb of the track, to get his gait, to get his
stall, to get his stable. He is not the qualified agent for the
owners. We need a national organization to represent the owners
like any number of other--ASCAP, for instance, to deal with all
of the various tracks.
And let the owners--if you take those two out, the owners
will unite themselves. You won't need a bureaucracy to run it.
The TLC in California, the horse group in Ohio, Florida, Texas,
New York, they will come together. They fear antitrust action,
and you might pay attention to that as well. But the point is
that they will voluntarily cure all these problems and organize
if you just let them and take away the fear that, if they do
organize, they are going to be litigated. That is a serious
concern.
We need to fix the broken economic model. But the industry
can do that if you adjust that.
Now, you need to study breeding and other issues. It is a
very serious thing. We have inbred impurities. We concentrate
speed instead of the upper body. We look for an Arnold
Schwarzenegger's upper body and then we look for Don Knotts's
legs and knees. We don't need all of the inbreeding we have. We
need outcrossing. I go to Argentina to buy horses, I go to
Germany to buy horses, because they have stronger bones and
better knees.
And we need a league and a commissioner.
I will wrap it up: it is a tragedy these issues are before
you today. None of these ideas are new. We have been debating
them for almost my entire life; I am 78 years old. We need
action. Please, Congress, help us.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:]
Statement of Jess Stonestreet Jackson
Summary
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I welcome
congressional help and there are two areas that require
immediate action: first, a broken business model must be fixed
and second, drug use and other safety standards need to be
addressed.
These problems have common root causes: The lack of a
national and responsible horse owners' organization; the lack
of transparency in industry practices; the lack of uniform
standards; and most importantly, the lack of accountability and
enforceability. All of which can be corrected by an effective
horse owners' organization. It is clear to me that most of the
industry's present ills stem from the fact that we are a
national, or international, sport, that has no competent
central regulating body or federal authority mandating
uniformity in the United States. While one or more of the
present organizations may, with the best of intentions,
``study'' various issues, few have the authority and none
enforce uniform national standards. Some of these issues have
been studied, as with the banning of performance altering
drugs, for decades without action. As this Committee properly
senses, we need less STUDYING and more DOING.
While I do not favor more federal regulation or
bureaucracy, I do think that a carefully crafted charter, or
other vehicle, for a federal horse racing association
(representing horse owners) is urgently needed to ensure better
treatment for the horses and enhance the revenues for both the
tracks and the horse and improve the integrity and safety of
the sport.
Testimony
Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member Whitfield and Members
of the Subcommittee, good morning. My name is Jess Jackson. I
am here today because of my lifelong passion for the sport of
thoroughbred racing and breeding and my role as a relative
newcomer to thoroughbred ownership. My life experiences include
many vocations. I was a law enforcement officer, a practicing
attorney, and a member for the Center for Democracy. I am also
the founder of Kendall-Jackson Winery. At heart, I am a farmer.
I appreciate the opportunity to address you today on
matters of importance concerning the sport and business of
thoroughbred racing. While we are all deeply saddened that the
tragic injuries to horses such as Barbaro and Eight Belles may
be the impetus for this hearing, I believe most owners of
horses nationwide, including a large silent majority connected
to thoroughbreds, are very encouraged that Congress is holding
this hearing today. We need Congress to take an active interest
in assuring the integrity, safety, and economic viability of
this magnificent sport.
My passion for horses and the sport of horse racing dates
back more than seven decades. As a boy growing up in
California, I had the privilege to watch Seabiscuit--one of the
most popular thoroughbreds of all time--run in a race not too
far from my home. That memory has stayed with me all these
years, and helped forge a strong affection for horses and a
deep appreciation of their beauty, power, elegance, and
athleticism.
I am a life-long fan of thoroughbred racing. Through hard
work and perhaps a fair dose of good luck, I have found myself
in a position to pursue my passion for thoroughbred horses as
more than just a fan. I am 78 years old. I had hopes to ease
into my retirement but instead, a few years ago, my family and
I returned to raising and racing horses which led to the
establishment of Stonestreet Stables. I wanted to join and
participate in a great agriculture industry whose vast majority
are honest, hardworking people producing what was and can again
be a top sport and entertainment industry.
Today, Stonestreet Farm owns over 100 broodmares and their
foals, and our Stonestreet Stables currently races and trains
60 or so thoroughbred horses. Among them is Curlin, in whom we
own an 80% interest. Curlin is an amazing horse. In 2007 he was
Horse of the Year, placed in all the Triple Crown races and won
the Breeders Cup. He won the Dubai World Cup in March and is
ranked as the number one thoroughbred in the world. This past
weekend, at Churchill Downs, he raced to first place to the
applause of thousands of spectators.
The Committee's concern about the health and welfare of
thoroughbred horses, as well as the overall status of the horse
racing industry, is very well-founded. As excited as my family
is about getting into the thoroughbred racing arena, and about
the enormous success of Curlin, our enthusiasm has been
tempered by the realization that the sport of thoroughbred
breeding and racing faces serious challenges that imperil its
future in America.
There are two areas that require immediate action: first, a
broken business model and second, drug use and other safety
standards.
A BROKEN BUSINESS MODEL
A Commissioner and a horse owner-based governing body are
urgently needed. It is the only way to fix the industry's
broken business model. The absence of a legitimate national
governing body with federally-sanctioned authority to make and
enforce consistent rules, regulations and standards is
desperately needed. Correspondingly, we need Congress' support
to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) in order to
immediately permit those who are the real investors, the real
parties in interest, race horse owners, to organize. For
instance, the thoroughbred horse owners provide all the capital
for the horses that race, but are unable to organize for fear
of anti-trust litigation. An immediate example is the lawsuit
filed by Churchill Downs against the Kentucky and Florida horse
owners' groups. If permitted to organize through their
respective state thoroughbred owners groups, private non-
federal entities, and participate in and help make the complex
business decisions in today's marketplace, revised integrity
and economic models would soon be enacted nationally. To show
the economic advantages of such amendments to the IHA I have
attached to my testimony an article by Fred Pope entitled,
``Change the Law--Engage Racehorse Owners.'' In this article,
Mr. Pope describes in detail the economic plight of the
thoroughbred racing industry. In pertinent contrast, The Jockey
Club in England is an effective private organization that sets
the rules and enforces them. In the United States, our Jockey
Club acts as a mere registry of birth and ownership transfer.
If horse racing is to regain the immense popularity it
historically proved, we, the horse owners, must be permitted to
organize and to have a league of our own. While such a league
may be either private or public, to succeed it is clear that we
will need your help--the right to organize safely from spurious
anti-trust litigation. And as thoroughbred owners we must be
permitted to participate at the negotiations between the
tracks, the off track betting industry and the TV betting media
(advance deposit wagering or ADWs).
In the absence of a healthy new economic model, the most
promising source of return on a horse owner's investment
increasingly comes from breeding their horses. Current
estimates are that horse owners in racing invest over $4.3
billion a year for the chance to compete for approximately $1.1
billion in purses. The result is that most horses' racing
careers are geared toward maximizing, at all costs, the horses'
early retirement potential for a successful breeding career,
and not continuation of racing. In practical terms it means we
are racing juvenile horses too soon and racing 2-year-old
horses before their bones and joints are fully developed should
end. Moreover, racing 2- and 3-year-olds can result in serious
career ending injuries as witnessed on national TV with
Barbaro, Eight Belles and others. There is every incentive to
compress horses' racing careers, racing them to young and
retiring them too soon, in order to get them to stud sooner and
avoid the risk of breakdown. I join with others including many
prominent and successful trainers who urge that horses be
barred from racing until they are much older.
When we decided to race Curlin as a 4-year-old, it
astounded many in the industry that we would put aside a year's
breeding revenue of about 15 million dollars, an amount far
greater than we could earn on the track, run the risk of loss
or injury from racing and incur the multi-million dollar cost
of insuring Curlin for racing. But my family and I wanted to
give the industry a boost and share Curlin's speed, brilliance
and stamina with the fans. In defining Curlin we personally
risk his serious injury and even his death. Since making that
decision, we have been overwhelmed with congratulations and
support from fans and owners around the world. Curlin continues
to earn his legacy as an American champion for the ages,
bringing pride and good will both to the industry and our
country, both here and abroad. Most importantly, his stamina,
power, durability, and speed have proven the value of racing
stronger and more experienced horses, and (so far) has
validated our decision. His ultimate impacts may be to
propagate his DNA through his progeny for a sturdier breed and
serve as an example for racing older horses.
The fans are important to me and to the industry. Let's
look at racing for a moment from their point of view. Purses
have dwindled to the point where fewer owners enter their
horses in any but the most lucrative venues. With the advent of
off-track betting and fewer horses racing and smaller gates and
purses, many tracks do not have the financial resources to
maintain much less expand their facilities, which results in a
less enjoyable and less friendly family and social experience
for spectators. Contrast this to Hollywood or Del Mar in the
days of Bing Crosby.
We need an open and frank dialogue about the gaming side of
our sport. While betting exists in all sports, there is no
doubt that it has corroded our industry more than others. If
you go to any track in America today, the front and the back of
the house are in deteriorating conditions. Why? Because off-
track betting is getting more money then the tracks themselves
which in turn prevents the tracks from becoming state of the
art facilities both for the horses and the fans. (See Mr.
Pope's article). It is also a disincentive for tracks to put on
an entertaining live show for its spectators. Even if they
could afford to do it, why should host tracks spend money on
live racing or greater purses when the lion's share of gaming
revenue is diverted from the tracks and horses who put on the
show (and risk their capital) to mostly benefit off-track
revenue which does little to enhance track or horse revenue.
Last year, racehorse owners lost out on about $540 million
purse accounts due to off-track wages. That is double the
amount of annual prize money on the Professional Golf
Association (PGA) tour. I personally admire the PGA and the
Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) as private models
which uphold both the integrity and financial viability of
their respective sports and their participants. We need a
better business model and we need it now. Horseracing may not
survive without one.
THE HORSE INDUSTRY'S DRUG AND SAFETY PROBLEMS
a. We Must Ban Improper Use of Drugs
Speaking bluntly, the horse industry has a drug problem. We
must replace the existing patchwork of state standards with a
uniform national standard that is in accord with international,
ZERO-TOLERANCE rules. Congress should start by banning steroids
immediately, at any level, for horses in competition. Lasix and
Bute should be banned as well--now--and should have been banned
50 years ago. These drugs mask pain and, worse, may mask
designer drugs including hormones and steroids, all of which
should be banned if they affect the track performance or
physical appearances of a horse at public auction or private
sale. The very fact that there is a debate about steroid use in
the Triple Crown, regardless of the merits, is damaging to, and
casts a shadow over racing. If one veterinarian (prospering
from its sale) convinces one trainer to use a drug other
trainers may feel compelled to do likewise in order maintain a
``level playing field.'' But does the horse have a say? It is
essential to conform to international standards and ban these
drugs now for other than true medicinal use. No horse entering
racing should have one iota or trace of artificial steroids,
hormones, or drugs.
Medication testing must be centralized and independent,
possibly using the USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency)
model. Infractions must be adjudicated swiftly and decisively.
Punishments must be severe, predictable and uniform. Currently,
most violations go to state-run administrative law proceedings
which can take years to resolve. It is unbelievable to me that
trainers who have been permanently barred in other
international racing venues are merely ``suspended'' for 3
months in the United States for illegal drug use, such as Cobra
venom!
b. We Must Make Racing Safer For Horses
The state of the breed is not what it used to be. To put it
in simple terms, the industry focuses excessively on breeding
horses for early, brilliant speed at relatively short
distances. Today, too many breeders end up producing heavily
conformed upper body muscled horses with relatively fragile
legs (Barbaro) and feet (Big Brown). The current structure of
the graded stakes races in the United States encourages
breeding this type of horse, and indeed practically demands it.
We can improve the breed by mandating transparency in medical
histories, revising the racing calendar and understanding track
surfaces' effect on equine health.
Due to the absence of transparency about the frequency and
cause of racing related injuries as well as the lack of
consistent access to medical records, conscientious breeders do
not have sufficient information available to make fully
informed breeding decisions. The careers of racing horses are
too short to provide much of a racing history on which to base
predictions of the performance of their offspring. All
contributing to the weakening of the breed.
The larger problem is that obtaining accurate medical
records for horses is extremely difficult. Most jurisdictions
do not adequately regulate medical record keeping for horses
and in some states (including California) medical records
belong to the person who paid the veterinarian and are not
available to the new buyer/owner. Worse, an uninformed buyer
may race a horse with an increased risk of injury or death.
Just as Google is moving to establish a confidential,
centralized, online database for human medical records, so
should there be a repository of accurate horse medical records
and ownership. Also, maintenance of accurate medical and
ownership records available to the industry and all its
prospective owners and breeders of the horses during both sale
and racing is essential. Through ownership records the physical
and medical history of equine can be verified. True ownership
records also would help prevent fraud occurring at auctions and
private sales where wrongdoers can falsify bids and documents
of a horse's prior sale and medical histories. It is important
at sale to provide a potential purchaser with an accurate
picture of the horse and to disclose potential health problems.
For example, chronic steroid use, in addition to creating
health risks to horses, can cause irreparable fertility damage,
and is certainly information that is material to a high dollar
stallion purchase deal and his fertility performance as a
stallion.
Similarly, the racing calendar needs to be revised in the
best interest of the horse and coordinated across tracks and
states. A national racing commissioner could do this. A league
of racing could restore excitement and marketing to this noble
sport. One option is have the Triple Crown spread out with the
Kentucky Derby on the first Saturday in May, the Preakness the
first Saturday in June, and the Belmont the first Saturday in
July. This will promote rivalries, give the horses more rest
and recovery time between races and allow for a better approach
towards marketing the sport. The Triple Crown is, rightfully, a
difficult achievement and I am not advocating that the path be
made easier simply because we have not had a Triple Crown
winner in decades. However, as the Triple Crown currently
stands, these magnificent ``too young'' horses must overcome
the gauntlet-like nature of the grueling schedule rather than
the level of competition.
We also need to place the emphasis back on the competition
between more mature older horses to reduce juvenile injuries,
breakdowns, and catastrophic deaths. Accordingly the Triple
Crown races could be limited to 4-year-olds. Today these races
effectively mark the end of the viable racing career of high-
value successful, but young race horses. Looking at the
schedule of graded stakes, there are relatively few races for
horses older than 3 years and the disparity in earning
potential between what 4-year-olds and older horses can make at
the racetrack and what they may earn in the breeding sheds
generally forces most horses into retirement at or before the
end of their third year of age. Curlin and other 4 year and
older horses are having trouble finding sufficient races in
which to run in the U.S. and must go overseas for races with
purses three to ten times higher than current purses in the
United States.
Moving the age of the participants up to 4 would permit
horses to develop at a more reasonable pace before being
pointed towards the Triple Crown and allow for more seasoning
and conditioning. The result would be stronger, healthier and,
more skilled equine athletes. This will have the additional
effect of lengthening the racing careers--and starts--for
almost all thoroughbreds, which then gives a prospective
breeder more information about the soundness, ability,
strengths and weaknesses in a given horse or bloodline which
would tend to help breeder's avoid inbreeding genetic defects
thus strengthening the breed.
As it stands now, the racing careers of sire prospects are
so short that it is difficult to reasonably predict the long
term genetic characteristics of their prospective progeny. I am
told a famous, old time breeder long ago said he would not
breed a horse less then 4-years-old and had not run at least
fifteen races. In the last thirty years the total number of
races a typical thoroughbred runs before retirement has been
reduced from over twenty to about six.
Finally, we need to better understand the effect of track
surfaces on race horses. While we are in favor of whatever
track is safest for horse and rider, we are also wary that by
focusing on developing safer track surfaces we may ignore that
we now have a less durable breed. We must do both: study race
surfaces and improve durability genetics. The thoroughbred has
raced on dirt and grass for centuries. Is the current lack of
stamina and bone due to historic racing surfaces or more likely
to weak inbreeding for speed? We have handsome upper bodies but
fragile legs. Both bone and sinew have degraded. We should
focus on the cause (breeding weakness) not merely a racing
surface. The root problem should be fixed--breed more durable
horses.
CONCLUSION
All of all these problems have common root causes: the lack
of a responsible horse owners' national organization; the lack
of transparency in industry practices; the lack of uniform
standards; and, most importantly, the lack of accountability
and enforceability can all be corrected by an effective horse
owners' organization. Through that new founded organization,
horse owners must change a poor business model eliminate
``drugs and thugs'' and restore safety. It is clear to me that
most of the industry's present ills stem from the fact that we
are a national, or international, sport, that has no competent
central regulating body or federal authority mandating
uniformity in the United States. Individual states each have
their own regulations that differ, and there are multiple and
inept trade groups currently existing that represent limited
elements of the industry, mostly the breeders, (the sellers)
not the owners (the buyers). But unlike every other major
sport, we have no organization or entity that effectively
regulates and markets the sport. While one or more of the
present organizations may, with the best of intentions,
``study'' various issues, few have the authority and none
enforce uniform national standards. Some of these issues have
been studied, as with the banning of performance altering
drugs, for decades without action. As this Committee properly
senses, we need less STUDYING and more DOING.
I do not favor more federal regulation or bureaucracy.
Where possible, I do think that a carefully crafted amendment
to charter a federal horse racing association (representing
horse owners) is urgently needed to ensure better treatment for
the horses and enhance the revenues for both the tracks and the
horse and improve the integrity and safety of the sport. A
national organization would also overcome the most common
objection to reform at the state level--namely, that reform in
any one state will simply drive owners, breeders and business
to other more lenient state jurisdictions.
If we are to restore thoroughbred racing to its
longstanding position as a cherished national pastime, we must
start by protecting the health and dignity of the wonderful
athletes that delight and thrill us all. Establishing a
meaningful governing body with authority to set and enforce
standards in the interest of all stakeholders is the best way
to accomplish this most worthy goal. We must also return the
sport to our buyers (the owners of the horse) and to our racing
fans (our ultimate entertainment consumers). As in any sport
the both the participants and the fans are the backbone of the
industry. And in the end, if we can accomplish these noble
objectives, we will have properly honored the great legacies of
true heroes such as Man o' War and Seabiscuit.
Thank you for the honor and the opportunity to testify
today.
# # #
Change the Law--Engage Racehorse Owners
Amending the Interstate Horseracing Act will Engage Racehorse Owners
By Fred A. Pope
Revised June 12, 2008
In the Kentucky Derby, the brave filly Eight Belles became
classic-placed and then a few minutes later was put down on
national television. Every breakdown hurts, however the
Kentucky Derby is different. Throughout the world not just
racing fans, but families, gather around televisions on the
first Saturday in May. It is Thoroughbred racing's opportunity
to connect. It is the special day.
In my opinion, racing dodged a bullet on Derby day because
had the filly gone down a few seconds earlier, under urging at
full speed, we would have faced a problem on a different level.
Horrific images of such a spill would have been burned into the
memories of millions of people watching live and then replayed
again and again. The risk is there every time the race is run.
In 1987, Alysheba's near fall in the stretch of the Derby
raised the question: ``How can we make Thoroughbred racing
strong enough to withstand such a disastrous event?''
Whether working on a political campaign or a brand of
peanut butter, that's how marketing people think because we
know bad things happen and you either build an image strong
enough to handle it, or risk having your product disappear.
The safety issue is being addressed; but, it isn't the
reason our sport is in crisis and fixing it will not provide
the answer to how can we make racing strong enough to insure
its future.
The Public Gets It
In the blame game, the industry knows the Derby breakdown
is complicated. But the public takes a more direct view. The
public knows racehorse owners are to blame. It is the racehorse
owners' game and they are responsible for their horses. That's
the way the world works. The public gets it.
The problem is racehorse owners don't get it. Racehorse
owners, against all reason, have given control of their sport
over to the tracks and seem to take no responsibility for what
happens to it. You can own a racehorse and your only
responsibility is to pay the bills.
We have a long list of national organizations, but nowhere
among them is a national Racehorse Owners Association (ROA).
Several national organizations say they speak for racehorse
owners, however those organizations are actually controlled by
breeders, tracks or trainers. It seems everyone in our industry
wants to speak for racehorse owners, except racehorse owners.
While there many stakeholders in the Thoroughbred industry,
the racing segment has only two stakeholders: racehorse owners
and track owners.
Sports' marketing is successful when the players, or owners
of the talent, acquire the rights of the facilities where they
play, then package and present the sport to the public.
Every sport operates that way except ours. In Thoroughbred
racing, the owners of the talent (racehorse owners) give away
their rights to the facility (racetrack) where they race.
It is the structural flaw that dooms the sport. When people
complain there is no one in charge, how could there be someone
in charge? Think about it.
At one time, the golf courses controlled professional golf
tournaments. The golf courses jerked the players around the
country for low purses and low attendance. Then the
professional golfers engaged, pooled their rights and adopted
the major league model for the PGA Tour. The PGA Tour then
acquired the image rights of the golf courses and today it
packages and presents a great schedule for high purses and high
attendance. If, God forbid, a golf shot killed a person in one
of their events, the PGA Tour will be strong enough to survive
it.
As many of you know, I am a proponent of racehorse owners
forming a major league like the PGA Tour. Yes, a major league
would do the things everyone wants for the sport of
Thoroughbred racing. It would have someone in charge. It would
have all rights pooled into the proven business model. It would
grow the sport and make it strong. However, until that happens,
there is an urgent need to engage racehorse owners right now.
How Can We Engage Racehorse Owners?
Racehorse owners' purse money is a good place to start.
This year about $540 million is leaking out of purse accounts
that are funded by off-track wagers. To put that amount of
money into perspective, $540 million is twice the money in all
stakes races in North America. It is also double the annual
prize money on the PGA Tour. A change in the off-track business
model is needed now to stop this money from leaking out and
racehorse owners must engage to change it.
The fastest way to get racehorse owners to engage in the
business is to change one word in the Interstate Horseracing
Act (IHA) into two words. Currently under the law, simulcast
approval requires ``horsemen'', which are defined in the law as
owners and trainers. Changing from the term ``horsemen'' to
``racehorse owners'' with no definition required will
immediately engage racehorse owners in their own sport.
When interstate simulcasting started in 1978, the approval
of ``horsemen'' at the host track and at the receiving track
was a pretty basic decision. Today, off-track distribution is a
sophisticated business venturing far beyond the borders of
tracks. It is doubtful anyone is going to say trainers are
better than racehorse owners to make the complex business
decisions needed today.
A simple amendment to the IHA will engage racehorse owners,
some might say bring them kicking and screaming, into the
business of Thoroughbred racing. It is the racehorse owners'
game and they have both the right and the responsibility for
simulcast approval.
Simulcasting Changed The Business Model Of Racing
The business model for pari-mutuel wagering started with a
deal between the two stakeholders: the tracks and the racehorse
owners. With each stakeholder having a significant investment
in putting on the show, they agreed to a 50-50 split of the
after tax takeout from wagers. The 50-50 split of on-track
wagers netted and equal 8% into the purse account and 8% to the
host track putting on the show.
The business model for on-track wagers has stayed the same;
however, simulcasting changed the business model for off-track
wagers. Simulcasting has grown from nothing to where about 90%
of all racing handle is made off-track today.
Each year as the percentage of handle from off-track
wagering increases, the percentage of off-track wagers going
into purses has decreased from 8% to about 4% today. Those 4
percentage points matter.
Why is this $540 million (4% of $13.5 billion) in off-track
wagering leaking out of Thoroughbred purses? The culprit is an
insane business scheme that the small tracks and resident
horsemen devised, giving the lion's share of the money (18%) to
``where the bet is made'', instead of ``where the show is
produced'' (3%).
A direct analogy to this off-track model would be if a
convenience store took the lion's share of a lottery ticket
sale because the store punched in the numbers and sold the
ticket.
In the real world, the Lottery organization pays the
convenience stores only 5% for punching in the numbers and
taking the Lottery ``bet''. (YouBet.com has said they can make
a profit with just 5% of the off-track wager.) If racehorse
owners change to a business model where the bet takers receive
5% for taking off-track wagers, there will be little or no
leakage of racehorse owners' purse money.
Before simulcasting, each track lived and died based upon
its ability to put on a good show and attract a large crowd of
bettors. The transient racehorse owners were drawn to the
tracks with rich purses derived from the 50-50 split from
wagers. The bigger markets delivered high attendance and with
the high purses they offered, the largest number of people got
to see the best horses race. It is a business model that makes
sense and it worked well for the sport.
The introduction of simulcasting in 1978 could have taken
Thoroughbred racing to the next level by dramatically
increasing distribution of our best racing products. Purses at
the tracks putting on the show in our biggest markets would
have soared to heights unimaginable today. That's the way the
world works and it could have worked that way for Thoroughbred
racing.
When simulcasting started, ``where the bet was made'' was
either at a host track or a receiving track. The receiving
tracks and horsemen seemed to have the philosophy ``we own our
customers and if they are going to bet on races at other
tracks, we are going to get the lion's share from their bets''.
While that was true in the beginning, the Internet and mobile
technology has shown us no one owns the consumer today.
Consumers today are free and mobile.
There is a need to pay taxes to the state where the bet is
made and just like purchases made on the Internet, we can
continue paying the state their tax on the bet. All the while,
we can be changing to an off-track business model that gives
the lion's share ``where the show is produced''.
``Where The Bet Is Made'' Is Killing The Sport
The tracks and horsemen are so addicted to the large margin
they make on imported races (about 18%, versus the 3% going to
the host track) that it has blinded them to the amount leaking
out of the sport through other bet takers. The only way to
bring change is for racehorse owners to engage in the business
and establish a new off-track model that will allow the host
track to make a profit and ensure a fair amount goes into
purses.
It isn't just the money, it is the most basic question for
racehorse owners: Are we in the business of putting on a racing
show, or are we in the business of making money on someone
else's show? Trying to have it both ways isn't working.
Racehorse owners, by not engaging, have put the tracks into
the position of planning for a future where there is no
incentive to grow live racing and the sport. The current
incentive is for the tracks to convert into facilities where
the live racing show is subservient to betting on other
racetracks' races and other gambling, i.e. the new Gulfstream
Park.
Today, one of the tracks benefiting the most from ``where
the bet is made'' is Keeneland, with only 30 days of live
racing, but 11 months of taking the lion's share from imported
races. This allows their limited live race days to benefit with
large purses, but as much as we like Keeneland racing, is that
what we want? Do we want our national sport to be downsized to
a few weeks of festival racing?
Keeneland is not to blame for the off-track business model
and they have tried many times to raise the off-track price on
their quality races. But, as we dig deeper into this mess, it
is clear that the current model rewards the tracks with the
least live racing.
I favor a Major League structure within the sport of
Thoroughbred racing. However, we also need a strong program of
minor league racing, a feeder-system if you will. We need to
continue having 35,000 foals born each year to give us the best
6,000 to race at the highest level.
Legal gambling makes lower levels of Thoroughbred racing
economically viable, but the lower levels are not viable as a
sport. Every sport has found they need a major league structure
to package and present the highest level of their sport as the
beacon that connects with the public.
Breeders Should Urge Racehorse Owners To Engage
Although commercial breeders are not one of the two
stakeholders in the racing segment, they have great interest in
the sport. Breeders should be very concerned about the $540
million dollars leaking out of purses, because racehorse owners
wanting to purchase new racing prospects could reinvest a good
percentage of that money. Today, none of the money leaking out
of purses is being reinvested in horses.
With the incentives for the tracks changing away from live
racing, inevitably tracks will discontinue live racing. They
can make more money taking bets on other tracks races, so the
live sport will become more and more regional.
We still have great facilities in our major markets and it
is vitally important to restore a business model that will
allow them to not just survive, but to prosper.
At this year's Belmont Stakes, the once-a-year crowd of
94,000 people overwhelmed the water system. In America's
biggest market, a track built to handle large attendance has
been brought to its knees by the current off-track model.
Restoring a business model that favors ``where the show is
produced'' will restore our major tracks and the sport.
Giving the majority to ``where the bet is made'' is a
distribution model gone crazy and it has done its damage in
just twenty-five years. It has allowed gimmicks such as
``source market fees'', to leak purse money when there is no
track in the state where the bet is made. As tracks start
closing, more and more of the erroneous ``source market fees''
will be leaked from purses. ``Source market fees'' must be
stopped and the term ``source market'' should once again come
to mean the source of the live racing show.
If a state such as New Jersey has passed legislation that
prohibits paying a host track in another state more than 3%,
then the racehorse owners should not approve their races being
sent into that state until such laws are changed.
Gross handle means nothing to racehorse owners and the
sport if those wagers are not contributing enough to put on the
live racing show. By instituting a fair off-track business
model, racing could see the annual gross handle drop from $15
billion to $12 billion, and still have more money going to
support purses and host tracks. Isn't that what is important?
How Did This Happen?
Just after simulcasting started, a war developed between
the big tracks that were ``net exporters'' of races and the
small tracks that were ``net importers''. The net importers
were those tracks making more net money from their customers
wagers on races ``imported'' from other tracks, than they were
making from the bets made off-track on their exported live
races.
The big ``net exporters'' were tracks in New York and
California. Those were the tracks with high purses and high
attendance benefiting from large population centers.
Soon the insane business model giving the lion's share to
``where the bet was made'' brought the California and New York
tracks to their knees. Purses dropped, horses left, and
attendance fell off at our major tracks. Suddenly, the world
was upside down and with racehorse owners on the sidelines,
there was no one to correct the problem.
Racing's business model was changing and the small tracks
and the new gambling ``racinos'' started pulling horses away
from our major markets to remote rural facilities, such as Iowa
and West Virginia. The little guys were winning and our most
successful host tracks were losing. The problem is when the
best tracks in the major markets are losing; the national sport
of Thoroughbred racing is losing. No one seemed to care.
In 1992, I wrote an article called ``Whose Game Is It?''
and for a time racehorse owners started to engage. Later that
year, Ed Friendly resigned from the California HBPA Board and
with Mace Segal and other friends started Thoroughbred Owners
of California (TOC). Soon they successfully changed California
law to mandate TOC as the rightful organization to represent
racehorse owners for simulcast approval. Funding was provided
for the HBPA to continue their role with backstretch issues.
The following year, Don Rudder and friends started
Thoroughbred Owners of Florida (TOF) to do the same thing in
that state. Just when it looked like we were going to engage
racehorse owners, a strange thing happened. Commercial breeders
in Florida and Kentucky convinced the leading racehorse owners
who had signed up to start the TOF, to quit and as quick as it
started, that was the end of the racehorse owners' movement. No
other state racehorse owners' organizations were started.
The TOC represents every racehorse owner who starts a horse
in California and they have done a fine job, however the TOC is
powerless to change the current business model alone. The
Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) empowers and requires approval
from the horsemen at receiving tracks in other states and they
looked at California as the enemy.
By amending the IHA to rightfully empower racehorse owners
across the country by law, we can avoid the state-by-state turf
battles between breeders, trainers and racehorse owners. The
structure in California is a good model. Each group--racehorse
owners, tracks, trainers, jockeys and breeders--have a distinct
organization. In other words, when they sit down to do
business, they are not wearing more than one hat in California.
Today, with the current off-track business model, it has
evolved to where there are no more ``net exporting'' tracks.
Think about what that means to our sport. With the host track
receiving only half (one-and-a-half of the three percent) from
off-track wagers, incentives to put on a good live show are
gone. The host tracks cannot even afford to market their own
races, so declining attendance at live racing and declining
interest in the sport should not be a surprise.
The consumer research I have seen shows that the majority
of the generation born since simulcasting started in 1978 does
not have a favorable opinion of Thoroughbred racing.
We are losing the majority of a generation because we do
not have a structure to protect and grow the sport.
Is it any wonder the tracks and horsemen are at each
other's throats? They are literally picking at the bones and
trying to establish new businesses to go after the $540 million
leaking out of racing because of the insane model of the lion's
share going to ``where the bet is made''.
Currently the horsemen's groups are fighting with account
wagering companies to start putting more into purses. But, the
amount they are asking from account wagers ($30 to $40 million)
pales in comparison to the $540 million leaking from the system
because of the basic problem of ``where the bet is made''.
Unfortunately, the horsemen have no appetite to change from the
business model that favors ``where the bet is made''. The
original simulcast business model was a form of welfare for the
small tracks that got out of hand.
How can we stop leaking $540 million this year and assure a
fair amount of all wagers on a host track's races go into its
purse account? We simply change the off-track business model
from a buyers' market over to a sellers' market, where the
lion's share will go to the host track and racehorse owners
putting on the show.
By engaging racehorse owners, we will start to have
businessmen and businesswomen who understand the business model
of the past twenty-five years is wrong. The host track and
racehorse owners must control their product and its
distribution. That is one of the most basic principals of
business.
A Better Business Model
If racehorse owners develop a two-tier pricing model at the
host track, we can continue a favored distribution system
through other racetracks, while closing the leakage that occurs
with other bet takers, such as account wagering companies and
outlets with no live racing. Every phase of the distribution
system must start contributing a fair amount to producing the
show.
The first tier could be changing to an off-track model
similar to the one the Breeders' Cup uses, where half of the
takeout goes to the host track and the other half to the
receiving track. That should keep about 8% in purse accounts
when tracks trade signals.
The second tier-pricing model for other bet takers should
start with a license fee of close to 8% going into purses at
the host track. Exotic wagers have increased the total takeout
to about 21% today, thus with a 5% commission paid to the off-
track bet takers, the host track would receive about 8% for its
role in putting on the show.
So, with about 8% going into purses, regardless of whether
the bets were made on-track or off-track, each track will be on
a level playing field for the first time. That's the model we
should have had in place from the beginning. It is a model we
can have in place soon.
When this change occurs, we may lose some distribution as
off-track buyers adjust. If some current outlets are lost along
the way, technology will allow bettors to continue wagering
with the host tracks.
Why do you need 8% going to purses? Say you project the
off-track handle on one day at the host track will be $5
million. That would deliver $400,000 to purses. Combining that
with projected on-track handle of say $500,000 at 8% ($40,000),
the purse account would get $440,000, or enough for 9 races
averaging $40,000 each. Not bad, but less than it costs for
racehorse owners to keep the horses in the game.
Under the current model, the purse account would only get 1
1/2 % of that $5 million in off-track handle on its races, or
$75,000, plus the on-track contribution of $40,000, for a total
of $115,000. Then the purse account and host track would be
dependent on whatever came in from bets on other tracks' races.
The track and racehorse owners do not have control over their
own destiny under the current off-track model.
The Incentive To Produce A Good Show
What happens if the host track starts producing a good
show? In a model where the host track purse account would get a
fair 8% from the off-track handle on its races, if the host
track can put on and market a good show and the off-track
handle goes up to $10 million, then the purse account would get
$800,000. Combining that $800,000 with $40,000 from on-track,
would give you $840,000, or 9 races averaging $93,333. That's
the incentive needed for putting on a good show. In addition,
the host track and purse account would get 3 to 4% of wagers
made on imported races.
Also, under the current off-track pricing model there is no
incentive for the host track to market its races. Currently,
the host track has more incentive to market other tracks' races
to their simulcast customers, than to market their own races.
Not surprisingly, there are a lot of people scrambling to come
up with a new business to go after the $540 million being
leaked out of purses.
Who will lose when the leaking is stopped? The only people
who will lose when the offtrack business model is changed are
those not involved in live racing. If any entity involved in
live racing loses under the change, then they were doing
something they should not have been doing. TrackNet, a joint
venture of Churchill Downs and Magna Entertainment, wants the
account wagering companies (ADW's) it owns to pay 7% to host
tracks (3 + % to purses), then a wild mix of ``source market
fees'' and 2% to 3% of handle to the television company they
own. For areas of the country without a track nearby, all the
rest of the money goes to TrackNet. That means the purse
account at the host track would only get 3 + %, but their
``partner'' host track could get upwards of 15%. That doesn't
seem to fit the agreed upon split of 50-50 does it?
Churchill Downs and Magna Entertainment own the television
company, HRTV, jointly. They want it funded by a percentage of
handle, 2 to 3%. Under such a model, HRTV would either be
underpaid or overpaid. Television production is a fixed expense
and should be paid a set amount. It would be good for the host
tracks to sit down with their partners, the racehorse owners,
and agree on the value of television production and how it can
be funded properly to grow the business and the sport. It is
not good business to fund television production with a
percentage of handle.
If racehorse owners will engage now in the business side of
running the sport, we can then hope it will spill over into
other issues like safety of the participants and a host of
other issues. With a national racehorse owners' organization,
they can decide how best to protect and grow the sport at every
level. It's their game.
Over the years, I have commissioned a great deal of
consumer research on Thoroughbred racing. I can assure everyone
there is a clear path for Thoroughbred racing to restore itself
as a successful, national sport. But, it cannot be done without
putting in place a business model that provides an incentive to
put on the live racing show. The process starts when racehorse
owners engage, fix this obvious problem and take responsibility
for their game.
The nature of an action sport like Thoroughbred racing
means bad things are going to happen from time to time. We need
to make our sport strong enough to overcome problems.
I like the word ``engage'' as it applies to racehorse
owners. It brings to mind the movie Top Gun. The crisis in the
movie came when the lead character, Maverick, would not engage
to protect his partner and his lack of commitment was putting
his carrier ship in danger. When Maverick overcame his fears,
took responsibility and engaged, his partner was saved, the
ship was saved and the story had a happy ending.We need some
racehorse owners with a little maverick in them to engage now
and save the sport of Thoroughbred racing.
2008, Fred A. Pope
----------
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
We are going to move to the question period. And be assured
that many of you all will have an opportunity to expand on your
remarks during that time.
I am going to first ask 5 minutes of questions.
I am going to do just a quick ``yes'' or ``no'' throughout
the entirely panel to make sure we have it clearly on the
record. Do you believe horse racing should be governed by a
central body similar to the National Football League or the
Professional Golfers Association or similar to the way horse
racing is governed by a central body in Great Britain?
Let's start with Mr. Marzelli.
Mr. Marzelli. Industry-led, yes. Federally, Federal
oversight, no.
Ms. Schakowsky. That is a good division, too. You can say
that.
Mr. Shapiro?
Mr. Shapiro. I absolutely believe that there needs to be a
central governance body.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Van Berg?
Mr. Van Berg. I believe the same thing. There needs to be a
central governing body to make them all alike.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Moss?
Mr. Moss. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Hancock?
Mr. Hancock. Yes.
Ms. Schakowsky. And Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. Yes, but I think you ought to give industry a
chance, and if they don't step up, you better step in.
Ms. Schakowsky. Do you believe that the benefits of the
Interstate Horse Racing Act should be conditioned, as was
mentioned earlier, on racing jurisdictions adopting strict,
well-understood medication and drug guidelines, stiff
penalties? I guess we are really talking about simulcast.
Mr. Marzelli. No.
Mr. Shapiro. As a last resort, yes.
Mr. Van Berg. I believe yes, with no medication whatsoever.
Zero.
Mr. Moss. As an outside observer looking into the industry,
I can't think of any other stick that would work. So my answer
would be a conditional yes.
Mr. Hancock. Yes, ma'am. I think that is the only thing we
can do to get it right.
Mr. Jackson. I am a firm yes, unless something happens
quickly by the industry.
Ms. Schakowsky. Do you believe breeding should be regulated
in the United States the way it is in other racing
jurisdictions overseas, Mr. Marzelli?
Mr. Marzelli. I am not sure I understand the question.
Ms. Schakowsky. In Germany they regulate how breeding is
conducted, et cetera.
Mr. Marzelli. There is not one----
Ms. Schakowsky. For soundness.
Mr. Marzelli. I am sorry to not give a yes or no, but there
is not one of the 64 recognized stud books that imposes
restrictions. Germany has incentives, the way many of our
States have breeders incentives. So I guess the answer would be
I still am not sure of the question.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK, you know what? I am going to move on
then, if that question is somewhat unclear.
Let me ask this. Should all performance-enhancing drugs,
including steroids, all of them be eliminated?
Mr. Marzelli. Yes.
Mr. Shapiro. Without question, yes.
Mr. Van Berg. Yes.
Mr. Moss. Not just performance-enhancing drugs, all drugs,
period. Yes.
Mr. Hancock. Yes.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, a firm yes, including anything that
alters the appearance of a horse at a sale, as well.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Mr. Marzelli, I wanted to ask you, you heard very clearly
from Mr. Hancock and Mr. Jackson and all the rest concerns
about whether or not the current regimen is really capable of
making the kinds of changes that are needed. And yet you
expressed a certain confidence that the new safety committee
that says that certain drugs anyway should be eliminated would
be swiftly adopted.
What I hear from the body of the rest of the testimony is
that these kinds of efforts have been unsuccessful in the past.
Why do you think it would succeed this time?
Mr. Marzelli. Well, for starters, I am an optimist. And if
you are not, in this business, you need to find something else
to do.
Ms. Schakowsky. Based on?
Mr. Marzelli. I am just an optimist at heart.
We certainly make it difficult on ourselves. The 38
jurisdictions in which we have to go to to achieve uniformity
is not efficient. There is no question of that. But I guess it
was about 20 years ago when Rupert Murdoch bought the Daily
Racing Forum from Walter Annenberg, the industry got very, very
concerned, certainly not at the magnitude we are concerned with
now.
Nobody said the industry could achieve what we have
achieved today--that is, an industry-owned database of racing
information, resting that control away from what was then a 90-
year-old third-party publisher monopoly. We did that; we got
industry consensus to achieve it. And today the Daily Racing
Forum is not only Equibase's biggest customer, but they operate
in a virtual enterprise with us.
I would like to think we are at that same kind of
crossroads today. I have seen a lot of support for our
recommendations, not only since Tuesday but since we announced
the formation of this committee. And I would like to see if we
are able to get those----
Ms. Schakowsky. I am sympathizing right now with the
witnesses because I have run out of time. And so I will ask Mr.
Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
And thank you all for your testimony. We appreciate that
very much.
Mr. Marzelli, back in 1980, legislation was introduced at
the Federal level to create uniform drug rule. And the industry
came to Congress. Senator Mathias and Senator Pryor of Arkansas
induced it. And the industry came and said, ``It is not
necessary. We can adopt a uniform rule.'' We are 28 years
later, and it still has not been done.
Now, the question I have for you is this. You all formed a
committee after Eight Belles went down, which was commendable.
And I read the other day, as you mentioned, you all have come
down with certain recommendations: banning steroids, toe grabs
and so forth, and something relating to the whip.
My question is, do you have the power to put this into
effect around the country?
Mr. Marzelli. No. We have the power of persuasion and
consensus-building.
Mr. Whitfield. And I think that your record would reflect
that you do not have even that power. We are 28 years later,
and still very little progress has been made. Now, I know that
they talk about there is a uniform rule adopted by various
jurisdictions in the 38, but each one of those rules is
different. And I notice in Louisiana, for example, they adopted
a uniform rule and then the legislature reversed it down there.
So I would suggest that I think it has been clearly
demonstrated over all these years that The Jockey Club, the
NTRA do not have the authority. I mean, the NTRA is a marketing
agent. You can do all you want to about consensus and so forth.
But the question I would have for you is, if we can use the
Interstate Horse Racing Act, which provides this industry with
the revenue that it needs, 90 percent of the revenue--and the
industry asked for it--and if we can set minimum standards that
would make it mandatory that jurisdictions ban steroids, ban
toe grabs, it is accomplishing what you want, why would you
oppose that?
Mr. Marzelli. I would like to see the industry regulate
itself.
Mr. Whitfield. Now, Mr. Van Berg, you are a hall-of-fame
trainer. It is my understanding that you won more races than
any living trainer. Is that correct?
Mr. Van Berg. That is correct.
Is this on now?
Ms. Schakowsky. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. Is drug use as widespread as it appears to
be?
Mr. Van Berg. I will put it mildly or put it to the point:
It is like chemical warfare. I will just put it straight out to
you. It has got, as far as I am concerned, plum out of hand.
Mr. Whitfield. Why are people using these drugs? I mean, if
a horse can run on natural ability, why would they be pumping
them up with all of these drugs?
Mr. Van Berg. Why do these people that have been in the
Olympics, now finding out that they used steroids, they used
EPO, which is an enhancer for your blood to build your blood up
and those things, and they are finding out now, and they are
taking their medals away from them.
I have an article I showed the rest of them about this girl
that was the fastest girl in the country, that admitted finally
now she was on EPO and steroids and what it did to her as far
as the female part. And, in the horse business, you know, it is
like keeping up with the McCoys.
Mr. Whitfield. And if a horse on its own natural ability
has a pain, he's not going to run, but if he can shoot
something in there----
Mr. Van Berg. They can overcome that. And it is the same as
Clenbuterol.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Jackson--this time gets to us, doesn't
it?
Ms. Schakowsky. Right.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Jackson, I read your testimony, and you
had included an article written by Fred Pope----
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield [continuing]. And about amending the
Interstate Horse Racing Act. Here is the question I want to ask
you: when the HBPA comes and testifies in Congress, they say
that they represent all the owners and all the trainers. And I
would like to ask you----
Mr. Jackson. When who comes in?
Mr. Whitfield. The HBPA. Do you pay any dues to the HBPA?
Mr. Jackson. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Hancock, do you play any dues to the
HBPA?
Mr. Hancock. No.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, the reason that they are designated in
the Interstate Horse Racing Act, they are the ones that
primarily wrote the Interstate Horse Racing Act, and that is
how they became designated as the ones that approved the
simulcast contract.
Mr. Jackson. A lot of organizations, Representative
Whitfield, pretend to represent the owners, and they don't.
Mr. Whitfield. Who are the stakeholders in racing today?
Mr. Jackson. The owners. We pour $4 billion a year, over $4
billion, $4.3 billion, into the industry for racing and
training horses, and we get $1.1 billion back. The owners are
the lifeblood of the industry, the new people coming in. But
what happens is the organizations maintain control in their
fiefdom and we can't alter the change.
Mr. Whitfield. So the owners and the racetracks are the
real stakeholders, I am assuming?
Mr. Jackson. Well, actually, central Kentucky breeders and
the racetracks are the primary voices that exclude the owners
and the horse itself.
Mr. Whitfield. OK.
I guess my time has expired.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Stearns?
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Well, I can see why Mr. Dutrow perhaps didn't show up. This
is a staggering amount of information to hear from you folks.
Steroids in horse racing is widespread--Mr. Shapiro. We
even heard that Mr. Jackson says he doesn't want to buy horses
in Florida or any other State in the Union because there is so
much inbreeding. So he goes to Argentina and Germany to buy
horses and not the United States. That is a telling comment, I
would think. And I would think, Mr. Marzelli, that that would
be a very disturbing comment, that there is so much inbreeding
in the United States that he doesn't feel comfortable, with all
of his experience in horse racing.
So my question for you is, the Jockey Club places all sorts
of restrictions on thoroughbreds in order to qualify to be
registered. For instance, your organization lists extensive
rules on how a horse can be named. Isn't that true?
Mr. Marzelli. That is true, subsequent to registration.
Mr. Stearns. You also won't register a horse that was a
product of artificial insemination. Is that true?
Mr. Marzelli. True.
Mr. Stearns. Why won't your organization put similar rules
for sound breeding principles in place?
Mr. Marzelli. Because we believe they would be selective
and arbitrary.
Mr. Stearns. And the fact that Mr. Jackson says he won't
even buy a horse in the United States, doesn't that concern
you? Wouldn't you think would have to put some sound breeding
principles in place?
Mr. Marzelli. It concerns me that Mr. Jackson says that,
but the fact is that the number of exports that left North
America in the last 5 years have increased by 27 percent. There
is still a great demand for a North American bloodlines around
the world.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Jackson, you are welcome to reply.
Mr. Jackson. The Jockey Club is a fiefdom, one of the many.
And it does a good job of making recommendations; it has no
power to execute those recommendations. We need a national
organization with the strength of the owners backed to get any
change.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Moss, you indicated that there are 38
racing commissions and they are all Nero-like CEOs. I think
that was your statement. Is that correct?
Mr. Moss. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stearns. Is The Jockey Club one of those Nero-like
organizations?
Mr. Moss. Well, I am a member of The Jockey Club, and it is
great for what it does, but it has no way to control the rest
of the industry. None of us do, none of these fiefdoms.
Mr. Stearns. So it is not his fault; he just doesn't have
the authority.
Mr. Moss. That is right. That is right.
Mr. Stearns. He has responsibility with no authority.
Mr. Hancock. That is right, yes, sir.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Marzelli, why not put some hard and fast
rules on only 4-by-4 inbreeding, on only horses that have never
been on steroids?
Mr. Marzelli. Once again, we are a member of the
International Stud Book Committee, and we subscribe to the
international definition of the ``thoroughbred,'' which does
not impose selective and arbitrary measures or attributes in
what constitutes a thoroughbred.
If we impose selective and arbitrary attributes, we not
only would open ourselves up to criticism that we were being
selective, but we would prohibit or restrict trade around the
world, because our definition of a thoroughbred would differ
from the rest of the world.
Mr. Stearns. Well, our drug rules differ, don't they?
Mr. Marzelli. The drug rules differ on track. And I am not
a fan of them, by the way.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Mr. Marzelli. And I take a lot of heat when I travel
internationally about them.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Jackson mentioned that the Interstate
Horse Act, if we just changed two words, ``and trainer,'' that
would go a long way. Do all of you agree with what he said?
Is that correct, what you said?
Mr. Jackson. Basically, yes. Although I am not pretending
to give the Congress words.
Mr. Stearns. No, no. I would say to the witnesses that
there probably will be a bill after the second hearing, and
this bill will probably, might even be sunset to help you get
started with a national horse racing commission. I had a bill
to do this with the boxing commission, and I had it sunset. It
was my bill in the House and Senator McCain in the Senate. And
it was defeated on the House floor. It passed overwhelmingly in
the subcommittee and the full committee, but it was defeated in
the House. But I would suspect that some kind of bill that
perhaps would sunset would help you get started on this.
But my question is, and ask each of you if you agree with
Mr. Jackson, just deleting the words ``and trainer'' as a step
for this committee is a good idea.
Mr. Marzelli. I would like to see the text before I
comment.
Mr. Stearns. All he is saying is delete two words.
Mr. Marzelli. Which are?
Mr. Stearns. ``And trainer'' from the act.
Mr. Marzelli. I----
Mr. Stearns. I guess you are not familiar enough with it.
Mr. Marzelli. No.
Mr. Whitfield. Instead of ``horsemen's group,'' it would
say ``horse owner.''
Mr. Stearns. Yes, good point.
Mr. Shapiro. I appreciate Mr. Jackson's perspective, but I
think it is really superfluous to what the act needs to be
revised to really make fundamental change and create central
governance, which I believe is the goal of what Mr. Jackson and
what all of us believe. And, therefore, I think----
Mr. Stearns. We are all struggling to understand your
issue, and we are asking for your help on what to do. Soif you
don't know, you can say you don't know. So I am just asking if
you agree with him.
Mr. Shapiro. I don't know that I agree with that particular
part, but we are certainly late in getting out of the starting
gate to create a central body of governance, which this
industry sorely needs.
Mr. Stearns. OK.
Quickly, Mr. Van Berg?
Mr. Van Berg. I would say I don't know that much about it,
but I think that, as far as you are talking about the breeding
and stuff, you need a central governor.
And if you stop all medications, zero of anything, that
will eliminate the unsound horses themselves. They will
eliminate themselves. I don't think you can sit here and talk
toe grabs and whatnot. You need to eliminate the medication,
zero. The unsoundness of horses will eliminate themselves and
make your racetracks deep enough where speed is not the thing.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Moss?
Mr. Moss. I seldom pass up a chance to give an opinion,
but, in this particular situation, I am not that familiar with
the subtle nuances of the language of the Interstate Horse
Racing Act. So I would have to give you an ``I don't know''
there.
Mr. Stearns. Mr. Hancock?
Mr. Hancock. Yes, sir. Well, I think the Army needs a
general. I mean, we have a lot of great organizations, but, as
I say, they are scattered and not organized and oppose one
another. And so I just think the Army needs a general. Does
that answer your question?
Mr. Stearns. Sort of.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Jackson. On that one point, I just wanted to eliminate
the impression that just that would be all we might be asking.
Mr. Stearns. No, no, but as a start.
Mr. Jackson. Yes, as a start, I think it will encourage or
embolden the owners to organize and bring their respective
States together to a national organization. And then if it
didn't, then I think Congress should----
Mr. Stearns. Yeah, give the owners the authority they need.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Ms. Schakowsky. There are four votes right now that the
members are going to have to go down to the floor for. We will
resume right after that.
I am not going to be able, I don't think, to come back
until later, so someone else will be in the Chair. But I want
to thank all the witnesses. And please wait, and we will
complete this round of questioning.
Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Ms. Schakowsky. If everyone could take their seats so we
can resume.
We will resume the questioning now with Mr. Pitts.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Marzelli, in your testimony, you talk about the
importance of uniform rules, both domestically and
internationally, with regard to breeding. Do you believe that a
uniform set of rules should also govern the use of medications?
Mr. Marzelli. Yes.
Mr. Pitts. Should there be a ban on steroids and other
medications? If so, which ones?
Mr. Marzelli. We are moving to a ban on anabolic steroids.
Eleven of 38 States have already put in place regulations to
ban those steroids on race day. And we hope that the remaining
jurisdiction will do so by the end of the year.
Mr. Pitts. In March, Curlin won the Dubai World Cup in the
United Arab Emirates, but there are different rules that govern
the sport there. Does The Jockey Club have a position on this
inconsistency? If other countries can have zero tolerance, what
is holding us back from adopting the same stance?
Mr. Marzelli. The Jockey Club has a long history of being
anti-medication. We have engaged ourselves in a number of
industry initiatives, from the racing medication testing
program, the quality assurance program, the Equine Drug
Research Institute. And in every one of those industry
organizations, we have advocated a strong--I wouldn't go so far
as to say a ``hay, oats and water'' mentality, but a as-close-
to-zero-tolerance-as-possible mentality, distinguishing between
performance-enhancing and therapeutic.
Mr. Pitts. So what is the difference between banning race-
day medications and banning steroids during training? Would
there be a difference in approach to training situations?
Mr. Marzelli. Actually, the recommendation we came out with
is an effective ban on race day and training.
Mr. Pitts. Both. OK, thank you.
Mr. Shapiro, in your observations, what do you believe the
most fundamental concern is, the pharmacological culture in
horse racing today or the breeding practices?
Mr. Shapiro. Oh, I think clearly it is the pharmacological
issues that are hurting racing. I think that if you were to
look at a graph of the number of starts per year of horses
dating back to 1960 and you were to then look at when
medications that were brought on board for therapeutic uses but
used in fact in racing, I think you would see a direct
correlation in the downward trend in the number of starts.
I think that the root of the problem today is medication.
And my fear is that, as medications are used in the breed and
they are being bred into the breed, I think that what they are
doing is they are masking infirmities and problems in the
breed, and it is being perpetuated as the breeding continues.
So I believe the Number 1 thing is medication. But
overriding that is there has to be a central body to regulate
it nationally. I am the only regulator here from this
particular State. And our problem is that we are disadvantaged
in California because we test more. And as we are more vigilant
than other States, we are disadvantaged. And we need other
States to join with us to rout out medication.
Mr. Pitts. Currently for what violations does the NTRA
primarily discipline members, and what are the penalties?
Mr. Shapiro. Who are you asking the question to?
Mr. Pitts. You.
Mr. Shapiro. Me?
Mr. Pitts. Yes.
Mr. Shapiro. I am not aware of the NTRA doling out any
penalties. I don't believe it is their job, or I don't believe
that they are an enforcement agency. They are an agency to
promote the industry and make recommendations, but I am not
aware of their having any power to enforce the penalties.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Van Berg, what kind of strict penalties do you
envision? Suspension, a permanent ban, what type?
Mr. Van Berg. Number one, you have to eliminate the
medications, zero tolerance of anything, to eliminate it. That
is where you have to start. The unsoundness of horses, they
will eliminate themselves if you stop the medication where they
can't bring them along.
And then you have to make the penalty where they have to
stand up and give them a severe penalty. Nowadays, if they have
a bad test, they get a slap on the hand or make a little
agreement that they won't have another one, and they just go on
with it.
And I think, for the welfare of the animal and the horse-
racing industry, they have to be on a level playing field. And
you have to have somebody, a commissioner or whatever you need,
to enforce the thing throughout all the States.
Mr. Pitts. Do you support the idea of some kind of a
national governing body for horse racing?
Mr. Van Berg. I would support it as a commissioner so
everybody has to be on the same level, yes, I support that,
with the right kind of commissioner that knows what is going
on.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Moss, in your opinion, is it possible to reform within
the NTRA, or do we need a completely new construct?
Mr. Moss. The NTRA is populated with people who have the
best interests of the sport in mind. There are a lot of bright,
intelligent people at the helm of the NTRA.
But the problem, as I see it, is that the NTRA and other
agencies in thoroughbred racing have no teeth. They have no
power to mandate any sort of meaningful changes in thoroughbred
racing. And however that is accomplished, that is a path that,
in my opinion, thoroughbred racing needs to go down.
Mr. Pitts. In your opinion, what incentives under the
current structure do the members of the NTRA have to adopt
stricter standards?
Mr. Moss. I think the public outcry over the Eight Belles
incident, following the Barbaro incident, has really created a
groundswell of support within the racing industry for change. I
mean, keep in mind, as you probably know, this is an industry
that has often been allergic to change. That is a positive
sign. And I think the NTRA feels that it has a mandate within
the industry to try to enact change whenever possible.
But in the end, when you look at the Thoroughbred Safety
Committee's recommendations the other day, which were
admirable, which were very good, you look at the response of
all the industry leaders, they use words like, ``we support,''
``we strongly support,'' ``we urge.'' There is no requirement,
there is no mandate there. They can only beg and plead,
basically, the 38 different State jurisdictions to go along
with these recommendation. And that is the problem that
thoroughbred racing has, in my opinion.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Pitts, we are going to do another
round.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you. I will yield back.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Hancock, in your testimony you state
that the veterinarians are running the show. Can you explain
that?
Mr. Hancock. Well, a couple years ago, I was at Keeneland,
and I told the veterinarian that I didn't want my horses to get
anything unless they were sick. And he said, ``Well, Arthur,
you want to win races, don't you?'' And I said, well, sure. And
I got the picture. Other horses are going to be getting
anabolic steroids and Lasix and these performance enhancers.
And I have my family's business in this, and I can't fight with
my hands tied behind my back. So, you know.
The veterinarians, like in Lexington, one of the bigger
banks, the biggest accounts up there, the veterinary
pharmaceuticals, they convince the trainers, who want to win of
course, and then the trainers convince the owners. And I am an
owner and I don't want to lose races. So I don't want to be at
a disadvantage.
It is just a vicious cycle. But if these drugs were banned,
you know, you could eliminate all that.
Ms. Schakowsky. But the veterinarians are making
significant profits from this as well, are they not?
Mr. Hancock. Very significant, yes, ma'am. I mean, vet
bills can run $1,000 a month, or I have heard them running
$2,000 a month.
Ms. Schakowsky. And is that primarily because of the drugs?
Mr. Hancock. Sure. I got out of Vanderbilt in 1965, and I
worked the racetrack for a year until 1966. And the only time a
veterinarian came around the barn was if the horse was sick or
they came to check him for race day. And now veterinarians are
now at the barns almost every day. I could show you the vet
bills. I mean, they run $700, $800, $900, sometimes $1,700 a
month.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Mr. Moss, you come from ESPN and ABC Sports, so can you
elaborate on your advocacy for a horse racing league similar to
the NFL or PGA? What would that look like?
Mr. Moss. What would it look like? Well, for starters,
whether it be done with Federal mandates or however it be
accomplished, it would have to be a regulatory agency with the
power, perhaps, to take votes from the various State
organizations, whatever, but the power to mandate significant
changes for the best interest----
Ms. Schakowsky. And what kind of sanctions would you
envision that would make it possible to enforce such rules?
Mr. Moss. The only potential sanction that I have heard
discussed that would make any sense at all would be the
sanction that some of you recommended about simulcasting
rights. I can't think of any other stick that is out there that
would work.
Ms. Schakowsky. OK.
Mr. Moss. Maybe there isn't one.
Ms. Schakowsky. Does anybody else want to comment on what
this national structure would look like?
Yes, Mr. Van Berg?
Mr. Van Berg. Well, the first and most important thing is
to have the testing procedure funded where they can do the most
sophisticated testing there is. So each State pays for their
own testing. And some of them don't have enough money to test
for everything they do, so they have to take some money from
the simulcast, which I say there is plenty there for them to
use, in a very minute percent, and have the most sophisticated
testing there is. That is where you have to start.
And then you have to have a commissioner to start to
enforce the rules for each and every State so they are the
same. And if somebody doesn't abide by the rules, then they go
down the road. And it is just plain and simple, where they
can't get a lawyer and take a thing--when you sign for your
license, that is what you go by.
But they have to have the testing, because a lot of
testings are not right.
Ms. Schakowsky. And you are suggesting that a funding
mechanism for that could be a percentage of the simulcast?
Mr. Van Berg. I would say, I just know from California,
when they took a small, minute percent of the off-track
stabling and banning stuff, and it was a very minute percent,
and they had an abundance of money for banning the horses,
stabling them at the racetracks, paying them to keep the track
open and stuff. I just suggested in my testimony that one-
eighth of 1 percent would be a lot of money of all the
simulcast, but have the best testing procedure there. It is
like for the Olympics, they slowed them down and caught them,
and made a big difference in them.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
I am going to turn it over to Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Mr. Moss, let me ask you a question. You have been an
observer of this industry for 30 years. You have been a
reporter; you have followed it very closely.
Given those observations, what, in your view, is the
largest obstacle in the industry to go to uniform standards
through some minimum standards at the Federal level? Why do
some of these groups like The Jockey Club and others object to
this so vehemently?
Mr. Moss. That is a good question. I think there is
probably, in a lot of areas, there is a fear of Federal
involvement, the fear of a loss of control of their own
destiny, of their own sport. I think----
Mr. Whitfield. But it is so puzzling because if they make
recommendations that we can help institute to accomplish their
goal, then why would they object to it?
Mr. Moss. That is a good question. I mean, I think what we
have seen is that the difference--the fragmented way that the
sport is being conducted right now is just simply not working.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Van Berg, I get the impression in the
horse-racing industry, unlike most--when people violate the
rules and are suspended for drug violations, there is usually
some stigma attached to it. Yet, in this industry, an Eclipse
Award trainer can be given that award even though he has
violated all sorts of rules. Why is that, in this particular
industry?
Mr. Van Berg. Well, because they tolerate it, is the best I
can tell you. That is what I am talking about when they give
them a slap on the hand and they get one infraction after
another and nothing ever happens to them.
And they go along and people come to the racetrack--a young
man comes to the racetrack, and he has no reputation, nothing
to lose. A young veterinarian comes out of school. And if they
can collaborate something that makes the horses do better, the
first thing you know, the guy is the leading trainer and the
veterinarian has all the business. So it is just a snowballing
effect.
Mr. Whitfield. I have a letter that a vet wrote to one of
his clients who had questioned the vet bill. And the vet
stated, ``The vet's job is to work with the trainer to achieve
whatever level of risk they desire.'' That is quite a
statement.
Mr. Van Berg. I can tell you this much, Mr. Whitfield, that
a lot of people with a trainer's license, the veterinarians are
mostly training horses. Because when you ride by the barn, the
veterinarian is jogging them go out on the path, looking at
them. When you ride back by them, they have their tray out and
injecting them or whatever they need to do to them.
And, to me, that is not a good horseman. If you don't know
what is wrong with your horse yourself, you shouldn't have a
trainer's license.
Mr. Whitfield. I am going to go into another area.
Mr. Hancock, in your testimony you mentioned that certain
foals have surgery and yet, when they go to sale, no one is
ever aware of it. Would you elaborate on that a little bit?
Mr. Hancock. Yes. If a young foal is crooked, he doesn't
have good conformation, you can have the veterinary procedures
done called PEs or they have screws and wires they can put in
the knees and things like that. And nobody ever hears about it.
I mean, they go to the sale and----
Mr. Whitfield. There is no requirement that it be
disclosed?
Mr. Hancock. No. And I recommended 15 or 20 years ago that
that should be put on the registration papers, the foal papers,
so we would have transparency.
Mr. Whitfield. But that is not required.
Mr. Hancock. And it didn't happen, no. It is money, you
know.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Jackson, I think you or someone
testified about the importance of having medical records
available for these horses.
Mr. Jackson. Yes. We certainly are breeders and prospective
buyers. In fact, the public itself and certainly the regulatory
agencies, if any, and certainly the organization should have a
full documentation of the trail of ownership, like you have on
a used car, on a horse.
Mr. Whitfield. Right.
Mr. Jackson. And you need the medical records, as well.
I was a member of this Sales Integrity Task Force recently,
and I was the only one dissenting. I wanted mandatory records
in what is called the depository at an auction, where any
prospective buyer could go in and see what medical treatments,
what surgeries, what drugs, the whole medical history of a
horse, so that they could make an informed decision as to
whether that horse had both natural running skills or breeding
potential. I was the only dissenting voice in 40 members of
that committee.
Mr. Whitfield. Let me ask you another question. How
widespread is this problem that you encountered where agents
that you hired to buy horses for you were taking kickbacks from
breeders that were selling the horse to you?
Mr. Jackson. It is not as widespread as you might imagine,
but it is too prevalent for the few that do it. And the
industry hasn't paid as much attention to it as it should.
Just recently, both auction houses, Fasig-Tipton and of
course Keeneland, took action to try to solve the problem. But
it takes a regulatory body with an investigative arm to ferret
out where this happens to process the claims or suspicions or
accusations. Then they also have to have a body to adjudicate
that. And then they have to have an enforcement mechanism.
The industry hasn't done that. They have taken baby steps
instead of giant strides.
Mr. Whitfield. Am I correct in saying that you hired an
agent to buy horses for you, and the breeders were giving that
agent kickbacks if he bought horses from----
Mr. Jackson. Some breeders, and then other breeders
overseas. It even got Byzantine. It went all the way through
undisclosed Swiss banks, bank accounts in Belgium and France,
certified accountants in Ireland, fictitious LLCs where money
was transferred. You couldn't trace back to the owner what the
history of a horse had been. And that allows people to be
bribed.
Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Pitts?
Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Hancock, you listed the many different conflicting and
overlapping organizations and associations in the industry. In
your view, are there particular groups that have been an
impediment to reforming the sport?
Mr. Hancock. No, sir, I wouldn't say that, except that some
of the groups--I think ego has a lot to do with it. They all
envision themselves as the saviors of racing each respective
group. They have their own CEO of the group and the members.
And it is like some good people trying to pull a wagon, but
they are all pulling in different directions.
So I wouldn't say there is any particular one, but it is
just everybody is pulling in a different direction. The Army
has no general. That is the way I see it, sir.
Mr. Pitts. Do you feel that a Federal racing commission of
some sort is definitely the way to go? Do you believe that a
private-sector organization, similar to the NFL or NBA, could
perform this function?
Mr. Hancock. No, sir, I don't. I wish that I thought that
it could, but I have watched it for too many years. As I say,
when Senator Mathias came up there, the industry came to
Washington and said that we will get it in order and get it
straight. But after hundreds of meetings and 28 years, nothing
has happened. And there just doesn't seem to be an urgency.
I think now, since you all have called this hearing, there
is more urgency now, I think, than there ever has been. But I
still don't hold any hope, because, as I say, everybody is
pulling in a different direction. The train has no engineer.
That is my view.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Jackson, on the vet bills, your average vet bills, is
that per horse each month or for the farm?
Mr. Jackson. Well, the vet bills have gone--let me say
this. Back in the late 1930s, early 1940s, Santa Anita
racetrack when Seabiscuit was running had three veterinarians
on hire by the track, and they took care of all the horses
while there. Now, if you go to Santa Anita, I bet there are 26
vets. The three used to drive Chevrolets. They all drive BMWs
and Cadillacs now.
There is a huge impact on racing, and the vet is impacted
by convincing the trainers that if they want to win they can
get this special thing this time and everybody else is doing
it. So we have to stop it, stop it cold, zero tolerance.
Mr. Pitts. What is your average vet bill a month?
Mr. Jackson. I would guess, because of surgeries, as Mr.
Hancock mentioned, wires and screws--I am learning the
business. I am re-emerging into--it is like ``Alice in
Wonderland.'' It has changed from the time when I was in it
before to where it is now. Now I have bills for knees, special
hoofs, special wires, special surgeries, special removal of
chips, OCDs. I would guess it is in the $1,000 to $5,000 per
horse per year. And it could be a lot more. I am talking about
surgeries, not medicines or therapeutic medicinal things.
Mr. Pitts. That is in addition.
Mr. Jackson. In addition. And I am not talking about what
they do generally to come out and help the birth of a foal or
to make sure a mare is in comfort at foaling.
Mr. Pitts. How do you, Mr. Jackson, suggest the industry or
the governing body, if there were one, deal with off-track
betting?
Mr. Jackson. Off-track betting is the money that has
mushroomed to be the largest segment of the potential handle,
but it is escaping the track and the purse.
The track and the owners have a common interest in
elevating what used to be 20 percent, part of that went to the
State or the city, maybe 3 or 4 or 5 percent, and they would
split 80--8 percent, and the purse was 8 percent of the handle.
Well, now the handle does not include whatever goes
offshore. It only includes part, a very reduced percentage,
maybe 2 or 3 percent, and it varies, of what goes into computer
betting or betting shops in New York or on TV.
You can bet so many ways now, and the fastest growing part
of the revenue that is generated by the show, the horse at the
track is going, I would say, off and out of the handle. And
that percentage that used to be 8 percent, it is distorted now.
The horse probably get 3 percent of the total handle. It is
off-track.
On-track we still have the same regimen. And there is
plenty of money there, please, to fund the veterinary clinics
we need, the analysis, the labs. There is plenty of money to
fund all the rest of it. We just don't get it. It goes to the
good old boy system on the breeding side, or it goes over to
the betting parlors, or it gets maneuvered through the State on
a disproportionate level.
And why is that? Owners cannot be at the table to negotiate
the percentage because the trainers are there. The IHA allows
them to be there, and we are absent. We need a commissioner, we
need a national organization, so that the owners can have a
fairer return on their money.
Mr. Pitts. I think I have time for one more question.
You have suggested that making medical records more
accessible would improve transparency and help breeders make
better decisions. Are there issues of confidentiality that such
a change would implicate? And, if so, how should
confidentiality issues be dealt with?
Mr. Jackson. I think that is a bogus argument. I am proud
of the product I produce at Stonestreet. We put a headline on
our catalog that we bred that horse and that we stand behind
it.
Confidentiality was explained to me by one breeder who
argued that against our position in the Sales Integrity Task
Force that, ``Oh, no, then we would have to tell our employees
how much we are making.'' Oh, boy. That is not an excuse for
having an informed buyer and an informed breeder be fully
informed in order to make decisions to correct the wrongs that
exist in the breeding system and in the racing system.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Schakowsky. I am going to have--it is not all the time
that we have these long-time--if we combine all your years in
the business, it is probably quite a few. And so Mr. Whitfield
has another question, and I am going to go ahead and have him
ask it.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am going to approach this from a little bit different
perspective, and this won't take long. But there are certainly
different levels of racing. There is the Churchill Downs, the
Keenelands, the Saratogas, the big stakes races. And then there
is racing at other tracks in which there are a lot of
$2,000,$4,000 claiming races.
And in those tracks, you frequently have horses--not
frequently, but you do have horses sometimes who have won in
their lifetime $500,000 or $600,000 and then end up in $2,000
claiming races. And when they get down to that level, there is
a lot of injection of corticosteroids and other things to keep
them running.
And I know there are volunteer organizations out there,
like CANTER up in Michigan and in the middle Atlantic States.
And their sole mission is to go to the racetracks and try to
convince trainers for horses who obviously can't run anymore to
let them try to retrain them for other uses. So the trainer, at
that point, sometimes they will sell, sometimes they won't
sell. Sometimes they will take them and let them go to
slaughter.
But I want to say that CANTER, up in Michigan, for example,
in 1 year--they raised their money voluntarily; the industry is
not paying for any of this--that they spent over $50,000 on
surgeries for horses that they took off of the track. So that
is kind of backside, the dirty side, of racing at a very low
level.
I know that some breeders like Mr. Hancock and Mr. Jackson
and others have established humane equine centers up in
Lexington, Kentucky, where they will euthanize horses who have
reached the end of their racing career and they have serious
problems and they can't do anything else.
Mr. Marzelli, I would ask you, does The Jockey Club have a
foundation or contribute money to organizations like that to
take care of these horses running at the lower levels of
racing?
Mr. Marzelli. The Jockey Club has two foundations. It has
The Jockey Club Foundation, which takes care of people that
have fallen on hard times that have devoted their lives to the
track. You mentioned Gary Birzer. I believe you mentioned it,
Congressman Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. I did.
Mr. Marzelli. We helped him. We were one of the
organizations that helped him.
And we also have the Grayson-Jockey Club Research
Foundation, which is one of the worldwide leaders in equine
research. Our research that we support supports not only
thoroughbreds but it supports all breeds.
The Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, together with
The Jockey Club, organized the welfare and safety of the
racehorse summit that held its first meeting, 40 industry
leaders, in 2006. A number of recommendations and good action
programs came out of that meeting. And----
Mr. Whitfield. Do you provide money to the Humane Equine
Center in Lexington or groups like CANTER who are picking these
horses up at the track?
Mr. Marzelli. We believe that every owner is responsible
for their horse. And, as the member of the NTRA, we support the
NTRA's position on slaughter.
Mr. Whitfield. And that is?
Mr. Marzelli. The NTRA is against slaughter.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. OK.
Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Schakowsky. And let me just add, I think it is pretty
well-known that Mr. Whitfield and I, for a long time, have been
trying to stop the slaughter and export for slaughter of
horses. And we are concerned that occasionally a byproduct of
the mistreatment of horses in your industry results in just
that, the slaughter and the export for slaughter of horses.
So we thank you very much, gentlemen, for your appearing
here today and for your testimony.
And I would like to excuse this panel and welcome our
second panel of witnesses and invite them to come to the
witness table at this time.
And I am going to turn the Chair over. Mr. Hill of Indiana
will come to chair this meeting at this time.
Mr. Hill [presiding]. OK. I would like to welcome our
second panel of witnesses and once again invite them to come to
the witness table at this time. Our witnesses are Lawrence
Soma, a veterinarian of New Bolton Center, University of
Pennsylvania. Dr. Soma is an equine pharmacologist and thus an
expert on the effects of drugs and medications on thoroughbred
racehorses.
Sue Stover, a veterinarian at the University of California
Davis. Dr. Stover is a specialist on orthopedics and has
extensively studied the cause of breakdowns and other injuries
afflicting thoroughbred racehorses. Doctor, it is good to have
you with us.
Wayne McIlwraith, a veterinarian at the Colorado State
University. Dr. McIlwraith is an orthopedic surgeon and, like
Dr. Stover, is an expert on the nature and causes of injuries
and breakdowns. Doctor, it is good to have you with us.
Mary Scollay, medical director, Kentucky Horseracing
Authority. Dr. Scollay was recently hired in her new position
and was formerly the track veterinarian at Calder Racehorse
Course in Florida.
Allie Conrad, executive director of Mid-Atlantic CANTER.
CANTER adopts thoroughbred racehorses from the track and trains
them for new careers in retirement.
And Alex Waldrop, president and CEO of National
Thoroughbred Racing Association. Mr. Waldrop testified before
the February 27th Senate committee hearing on performance-
enhancing drugs in sports. NTRA is an association whose
membership includes racetrack operators and the Jockey Club.
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind
you that your written statements have all been shared with
committee members and submitted for the record. If you have
opening statements, please take up to no more than 5 minutes
for them.
We will begin from my left, your right, with our first
witness Lawrence Soma.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE R. SOMA, V.M.D., PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE, NEW BOLTON CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Dr. Soma. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
going to discuss two issues today, and that is anabolic
steroids and furosemide as it pertains to in the bleeding
horse.
The State of Pennsylvania is presently regulating the use
of anabolic steroids in racehorses. Pennsylvania began
addressing the steroid issue in 2003. The impetus was the
common knowledge of their use. At that time we developed
analytical methods for detection, quantification and
confirmation of injected and naturally occurring steroids in
plasma. Those methods were published in 2005 and 2006.
Pennsylvania is currently regulating the use of anabolic
steroids by analyzing postcompetition plasma samples. Plasma
samples were chosen over urine because of the pharmacological
action of any drug. It is generally based on the plasma
concentration of the active drug and not its concentration in
urine. The complex excretion pattern of steroids makes the
analysis of urine more difficult, and in the use of plasma we
can screen for the presence of the drug.
We screen for approximately eight or nine anabolic steroids
currently, and we allow its quantification; that is, we can
tell how much is in there. Analysis of plasma samples from
winning horses in 2003 confirmed that 60 percent of the horses
racing in Pennsylvania had steroids in them, and some had more
than one. That is in our first survey done in 19--I mean,
excuse me, 2003.
Anabolic steroids are very slowly eliminated from the body.
Because of this problem the racing commission agreed on a
transition period using the plasma concentration of steroids as
guideposts. This transition period would allow the horse to
compete during this period as the plasma concentration of
previously administered steroids decreased.
The average plasma concentration of anabolic steroids has
progressively dropped from the month of March, where we started
screening all horses running in the State of Pennsylvania,
through July 10th. As of July 10th the average concentration is
below 100 picograms per milliliter. Now, 100 picograms per
milliliter is parts per trillion. In our survey in 2003, we had
2,000 or 3,000 to 4,000 picograms of anabolic steroids or
testosterone in some of our horses that are racing. We are now
on the way. Just about most of the horses in the State of
Pennsylvania are running free of anabolic steroids.
So, in summary, I think we have made considerable progress.
We are leveling the playing field as far as anabolic steroids
are concerned, and to the best interests of the bettor and the
horse.
Now, the second issue is bleeding in the horse, and you
have heard of the drug furosemide bandied around or Lasix
bandied around numerous times today. In the horse small amounts
of blood appear in the nostrils following vigorous exercise,
and this has been noted for years. The source of blood is the
lung, and this is termed ``exercise-induced pulmonary
hemorrhage,'' meaning when the horse exercises vigorously, a
small amount of blood is found in the airways, and then it
works its way up into the trachea. The mechanism is the rupture
of small capillaries, and this is because of the changes in
blood pressure that occur in the lung in the horse, which are
very high. Pressures of that magnitude, 100 millimeters of
mercury or so in us, would produce pulmonary failure.
Furosemide is used as a prerace medication with the
expectation of reducing arterial lung pressures, thereby
reducing or eliminating bleeding. The reduction in pulmonary
pressure, pharmacologically and physiologically produced by
furosemide are not of significant magnitude to prevent or
markedly reduce bleeding.
The effect of furosemide in EIPH. No studies have shown an
absence of blood or a reduction of bleeding in horses diagnosed
with EIPH following the administration of furosemide.
The effect of furosemide on racing times. There have been a
total of five studies to examine racing times. The largest
examined the record of 22,000 horses running in North America.
The conclusion from all studies was that horses that were
administered furosemide raced faster, earned more money, and
were more likely to win or finish in the top three positions
than horses that did not.
The detection of drugs in urine. A concern with the
administration of furosemide is the dilution of urine produced
by the extensive urination and the possible influence this
dilution might have on detection of drugs in the urine. This
aspect has been minimized as technology has increased. And as
you know, if a horse is administered furosemide, it has to run
3 to 4 hours later. So this will minimize the effect on the
finding of drugs in urine. But still it is a concern to all
laboratories.
In summary, furosemide does not prevent bleeding, improves
performance in some horses, can dilute urine to compromise
detection of drugs, and violates the rules of most States that
there should be no medication on race day.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Soma follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.028
Mr. Hill. Dr. Stover.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN M. STOVER, D.V.M., PH.D., DIPL. ACVS,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS
Dr. Stover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee.
California has monitored racehorse deaths for over 15 years
through a postmortem program mandated by the California
Horseracing Board and implemented by the racetracks and the
School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California
Davis. Over 4,200 racehorses have been necropsied through this
program. This is a sobering statistic. As a veterinarian this
is devastating, and each fatality is totally unacceptable.
My research laboratory is devoted to understanding the
causes and development of injuries so that strategies can be
developed for injury prevention. Seventy-nine percent of deaths
are associated with injuries incurred during racing and
training. Until recently fatality rates had slowly increased
over time in California. Approximately 3 to 5 horses die per
1,000 thoroughbred race starts. The fatalities are just the tip
of the iceberg. Because milder injuries cause many horses to
leave racing after short careers, approximately 20 percent of
racehorses leave racing every 3 months.
Pathologic evidence indicates that many catastrophic, fatal
musculoskeletal injuries are the acute manifestation of a
sudden occurrence following preexisting milder injuries that
develop over several weeks to several months. Mild injuries are
typically repetitive, overuse injuries common to elite athletes
of any species. Microscopic damage occurs when bones are loaded
during exercise. When this damaged bone is replaced by healthy
bone tissue through a normal process, there is a transient
period of osteoporosis that makes bones highly susceptible to
fracture even under normal racing and training conditions.
Consequently horses are actually inadvertently susceptible in
periods of time to injury under normal conditions; that is,
without intentional abuse by trainers, owners, or
veterinarians.
The clinical science preceding fracture development may be
subtle and difficult to detect. Consequently there is a need to
optimize the ability to detect injuries during the early stages
of development. Advanced imaging techniques and accessibility
to advanced imaging equipment are continually improved;
however, permitted medications likely mask signs of mild injury
and contribute to injury development.
Injuries, however, are multifactorial, with numerous
contributing factors that create opportunities, however, for
injury prevention, and I am optimistic that we can prevent
injuries. Epidemiologic evidence indicates the horse
characteristics, training and racing history, hoof management,
horseshoe characteristics, preexisting musculoskeletal injuries
and race characteristics all affect risk for injury. Key
factors affect the magnitude and frequency of loading and can
be managed for injury prevention.
Racing jurisdictions are actively addressing the injury
problem, at least in California. In fact, racehorse owners,
trainers and veterinarians, officials, and industry regulators
have embraced scientific evidence and implemented changes for
the benefit of equine welfare that countered long-standing
traditions. Advanced imaging equipment has been installed at
some major California racetracks to enhance early detections of
injuries. Jurisdictions have mandated limitations on the height
of a traction device, toe grabs, on horseshoes after a study
demonstrated an association with increasing risk for injury
with increasing height of toe grab. Recent scientific evidence
indicated that a synthetic race surface imparts significantly
lower loads and accelerations to the hoof during exercise.
California mandated that all major racetracks replace
traditional race surfaces with a synthetic race surface, at
huge expense to racetrack management. And other racetracks have
voluntarily replaced traditional race surfaces with synthetic
surfaces. Initial preliminary injury data support the concept
that race surface design and management have large potential
for injury prevention.
Racing communities are working collaboratively on a
national level to address industry problems. National summits
that addressed equine welfare in 2006 and 2008 were held by the
Grayson Jockey Club Research Foundation. These strategic
planning sessions brought together scientists and leaders from
all facets, breeding to racing, workforce to management of the
racehorse industry, to identify problems, recommend--develop
recommendations for problem resolution.
However, the racing industry consists of complicated parts.
I am unaware of an industry model that identifies relationships
between the components of the industry. It is conceivable that
management decisions inadvertently affect racehorse training
and management and thus have effects on equine health and
welfare. The number of horses required to fulfill racing
inventory while minimizing racehorse attrition is unknown. The
underlying racehorse population is largely unknown, and medical
data are difficult to retrieve.
Further scientific research is desperately needed to guide
the industry. Changes, for example, on racetrack surface design
are largely based on marketing factors because of sparse
scientific data. However, research funds are sparse relative to
the size of the industry. Equine research proposals are not
competitive for Federal funds because horses are not considered
an agricultural product nor related to human health.
Dissemination of findings needs to be broader.
In summary, musculoskeletal injuries are devastating to
equine welfare and to the thoroughbred racehorse industry.
There are, however, great opportunities for intervention and
injury prevention. The key to tracking the prevalence of
injuries and the success or lack of success of interventions is
identification of the underlying racehorse population. The
industry should consider a mechanism for identification of
horses that can be used for a horse's medical record, location,
exercise and movement, and racetrack horse inventory. The
racehorse industry and Federal granting agencies need to make a
substantial adjustment in research related to equine welfare
and mandatory continuing education of those people in the
industry.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before this
committee.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Dr. Stover.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stover follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.038
Mr. Hill. Dr. McIlwraith.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE MCILWRAITH, PH.D., D.V.M., F.R.C.V.S., GAIL
HOLMES EQUINE ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH CENTER, COLORADO STATE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. McIlwraith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. By way of introduction, I am director of the Gail
Holmes Equine Orthopaedic Research Center at Colorado State
University, and also hold the Barbara Cox Anthony University
Chair in Orthopedics. I am also an active equine orthopedic
surgeon, and so I am involved in the immediate repair and
treatment of equine musculoskeletal injuries, although I am not
too sure how good that is anymore based on the last panel.
I feel privileged to work on these horses, but probably
more importantly I direct a program to discover productive
answers for prevention and early diagnosis of these injuries.
As a personal example of my mixed job description, last weekend
I did surgery on eight horses at the Equine Medical Center in
California, and on Sunday I stayed in the hotel room to prepare
the written statement for this hearing.
I would like to comment on three critical areas that I
think make a difference regarding catastrophic fractures in the
thoroughbred racehorse and what we are doing to address these
issues. There is no question, as Dr. Stover has previously
said, that we have an unacceptable rate of injury in the U.S.
And these three areas are areas where we have done some
research and we have got ongoing efforts to try and solve.
The first one is fracture prevention, and it is based on
the premise of prior damage leading to catastrophic injury and
early recognition of this damage being key to prevention. There
is an accumulating body of evidence that the presence of
microdamage could lead to catastrophic fractures. This is the
same cycle of remodeling that Dr. Stover talked about. And
there is evidence. This evidence is actually based originally
on postmortem material done at UC Davis that Dr. Stover was
involved in, and more recently in work on looking at the
changes in bone with exercise that is being done experimentally
at CSU.
We have a number of ongoing research projects looking at
factors that might predispose to this microdamage and therefore
consequently fracture. These include joint and muscle modeling
to calculate the real forces, generic analysis, as well as the
effect of early exercise on bone changes. And interestingly
enough we have found that early exercise can benefit the
musculoskeletal system of young horses.
The most exciting and important part of this work, in my
opinion, is what we have done to diagnose this microdamage
early, using blood biomarkers as well as novel imaging
techniques. The principle of biomarkers is when the bone and
cartilage degrades early in disease with this microdamage,
degradation products are released, and these can be picked up
by antibody tests that we have developed.
We have recently completed a study that was funded by the
Grayson Jockey Club Research Foundation looking at these
biomarkers in a predictive fashion. We found that there was an
elevation of these markers in horses that sustained an injury 6
to 8 weeks after the elevation. We are up to 70 percent
predictability, but want to work to 100 percent. The long-term
vision here is that we could use regular blood samples to
analyze the biomarkers and identify a horse at risk. That horse
could then go into a bone scan, and this has previously been
shown to help diagnose early microdamage, or a CT to further
define the problem.
We have already saved horses with nuclear scintigraphy, and
this early work was based on research of Dr. Stover identifying
that stress fractures led to catastrophic fractures, and
consequently if we diagnose those early stress fractures, we
could diagnose a problem and stop catastrophic injury.
Unfortunately, not all horses show lameness, and so the
biomarkers, we think, are critical to screening the horse at
risk.
The second area I wanted to discuss is racetrack surfaces.
There has been considerable discussion on synthetic tracks. I
have been working with Dr. McPetersonat the University of Maine
on developing objective means of evaluating racetrack surfaces.
So we have created tests that reproduce the loads and speeds of
a horse's hoof at a gallop and measure the response on a
surface area. We are also in the process of doing further
research to set standards and make recommendations of optimal
maintenance of both dirt and synthetic surfaces. This work was
funded initially by the America Quarter Horse Association, and
more recently by a grant from the Grayson Jockey Club Research
Foundation, as well as contributions from selected racetracks.
I am chair of the track surface subcommittee that developed
out of the welfare summits, and we recently voted to establish
a laboratory to provide individual analysis of both dirt and
synthetic racetrack surfaces to give the feedback back to the
superintendents of the racetracks.
The third area, of course, is medication, which has been
discussed previously by the previous panel. The American
Association of Equine Practitioners initiated and coordinated
our industry's first ever racing medication summit in 2000.
From this summit came the formation of the Racing Medication
and Testing Consortium, and its mission is moving the racing
industry to uniformity in the areas of medication policy,
testing, security, and penalties. To date, 32 of 38 States have
banned all race-day medication except the antibleeding
medication Lasix. This policy was initiated by AAEP, whose main
goal is the health and welfare of the horse.
More recently the RMTC wrote a model rule to regulate
anabolic steroids and recommended adoption by January 1, 2009.
The new safety committee formed by the Jockey Club has already
adopted this policy. And as you heard previously, 11 out of 38
States have already adopted this policy.
In summary, these are three critical issues from my
perspective as an equine orthopedic surgeon and researcher that
are critical and are positive. These issues among many others
have already been worked on, and there is ongoing progress in
them. As veterinarians we continue to promote the health and
welfare of every equine athlete. Thank you.
Mr. Hill. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. McIlwraith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.057
Mr. Hill. Dr. Scollay.
STATEMENT OF MARY C. SCOLLAY, D.V.M., EQUINE MEDICAL DIRECTOR,
KENTUCKY HORSE RACING AUTHORITY
Dr. Scollay. Mr. Chair and committee members, good
afternoon. I served as racetrack regulatory veterinarian for 20
years and will begin serving as equine medical director to the
Kentucky Horseracing Authority on July 8th, so you can either
say I am on vacation or unemployed at the moment.
I want to talk for a minute about the role of the
regulatory veterinarian at the racetrack. The regulatory
veterinarian is charged with preventing injury; mitigating
injury should it occur; and affording prompt, humane euthanasia
when an injury cannot be mitigated. Very simply, my obligation
was to the horse, and I answered to my conscience.
In order to fulfill my responsibility to the horse, my
activities include pre- and postrace soundness evaluation;
triage of racing injuries; medical recordkeeping;
implementation of pre- and postrace testing programs; research
collaboration with academic institutions; management of herd
health; equine infectious disease and environmental disease
issues; policy development and rulemaking, and liaison between
horseman, racetrack management, governmental regulatory
agencies, and private veterinary practitioners.
As the focus of this panel is racing injuries, the
following is a basic description of race-day injury prevention
measures taken by regulatory veterinarians. Morning prerace
exams are performed on all entered horses. Horses are then
monitored by a veterinarian from the time they arrive in the
paddock until they have safely exited the course. And this
would include observation during the post parade, any activity
in the starting gate, during the race, after finishing, and
prior to returning to their barns.
At any time up to the start of the race, the regulatory
veterinarian has the authority to require a horse to be
withdrawn for health, safety, or soundness concerns. And I
can't help but think in hearing horses of the past being
referenced today, and having read Laura Hillebrand's book on
Sea Biscuit, that had he been entered in a race today, it is
unlikely that the regulatory veterinarian on the track would
have permitted him to run.
Horses with questionable status postrace are reevaluated in
a follow-up exam, and any horse determined to be injured or
unsound is declared to be ineligible to enter until the
decision has been addressed to the satisfaction of the
regulatory veterinarian. This protocol might be compared to an
individual being accompanied through each workday by a risk
assessment advisor and emergency care physician.
Racing regulatory veterinarians have maintained racing
injury records for many years; however, there has been little
commonality in the ways that records were established and
maintained, making data analysis and information disclosure
problematic. At the 2006 Grayson Jockey Club Welfare and Safety
Summit, I presented a proposal for a national standardized on-
track injury reporting program that would provide an objective
scientific approach to addressing the emotionally charged
problem of racing injuries. The program was initiated June 1,
2007. Sixty racetracks have committed to reporting in 2008, and
this number represents all but three racetracks that were
invited to participate.
The reporting racetracks represent a large number of race
starts, but data submitted is representative of only those
reporting tracks. To be a national program, all tracks must
participate. Currently this program is voluntary, thus showing
a consensus among the industry to participate, but reporting
should be required for all premises that conduct pari-mutuel
wagering on live thoroughbred racing.
Since inception and through June 15, 2008, 2,755 reports
have been submitted. These reports reflect a wide range of
conditions ranging in severity from minor abrasions to fatal
injuries.
The on-track injury reporting program has been underwritten
by the Jockey Club, and Incompass, a subsidiary of the Jockey
Club Information Systems, has developed and will be launching a
secure online reporting module. It is being provided as a
service to the industry. There will be no user fees associated
with reporting it to the database.
Industry support has been strong. RCI, HBPA, Jockeys'
Guild, in addition to racing commissions, track management,
individual owners and trainers, have endorsed the program. We
will continue to reach out to them and others in our efforts to
increase program participation. While initiated as a
thoroughbred-specific system, the system is currently under
review to identify data collection modifications that may be
required for implementation in quarter horse racing.
Phase 2 of the reporting program has been initiated as a
pilot program and expands reporting to include training,
postrace detection and nonrace-related injuries. The collection
of comprehensive and reliable data regarding training injuries
is substantially more complex than that of race-related
injuries; however, scientific studies indicate that
catastrophic racing injuries are the result of cumulative
events, therefore injury occurrence must be tracked
comprehensively if precursors to catastrophic injuries are to
be identified. Medication usage out of competition must also be
scrutinized.
It is intended that this injury database will generate
valid composite statistics that identify national injury rates.
Beyond that it is hoped that this epidemiologic database will
enhance injury prevention strategies. There is no end point for
data collection. It is by design a standing program. With
continued industry support this database will serve as a key
scientific tool in protecting the health of the equine athlete.
Thank you.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Scollay follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.066
Mr. Hill. The panel should know that in about 5 to 20
minutes, somewhere there, we are going to be called for votes.
So we will see how this comes along, and we will make decisions
as facts present themselves.
Ms. Conrad.
STATEMENT OF ALLIE CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CANTER MID-
ATLANTIC, GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND
Ms. Conrad. Thank you, Congressman Hill and members of the
committee. I am honored to be here to speak on behalf of the
horses that you do not see on TV, those running on the bottom
of the low-level claiming tracks. I am here to point out the
issues we see every day so that they can be discussed by the
esteemed members of this panel and resolved through an
independent oversight agency.
I am sure you are wondering what qualifies me to be sitting
here amongst these panelists. I am qualified to be here because
I rehabilitate and rehome racehorses from what is thought to be
one of the most infamous tracks for breakdowns in the country,
Charlestown, just 90 minutes from where we sit. I am qualified
to be here because I touch these animals every day. I see the
condition they are in every day. I am qualified to be here
because I must make the heartbreaking decision to turn them
away from our organization due to lack of financial resources.
One thing made very clear to me is that racehorses are not
protected from horrific ends by their pedigree. They are not
protected by their high sales price at the auctions. They are
certainly not protected by the money they win for owners.
You can take a minute to look at the racing chart of this
horse, 11-year-old horse, running. He has been running his
entire life. His name is Ask the Lord. A year ago he was
running for $55,000 per race. He is now running for $7,500 and
is most certainly running on injected joints. He will run
again, and he will run again, and he will run again until he
breaks down, in my opinion. He has been claimed and claimed and
claimed. It is a terrible, terrible thing.
We have cared for and rehomed sons and daughters of Derby
winners. We have rescued horses who have won $1 million. None
of it mattered once they could no longer perform.
The only thing that protects a racehorse from a horrific
death is having the good fortune of being owned and trained by
caring, honest people. And there are caring people in this
sport. And while I would like to acknowledge and thank these
people, we are not here to talk about them. We are here to
discuss the people that do not care, the people ruining what
used to be the Sport of Kings. They are running their horses on
injected joints to hide fractures. They are using claiming
races to dump crippled horses. They are dumping their horses
into low-end auctions when they can no longer perform.
I have stood next to too many of these horses mangled by
irresponsible decisions and have had them euthanized. These
horses were not injured from a freak accident or a tragic
misstep. They were injured over time with the assistance of
trainers, owners and veterinarians. These horses were injected
with legal and illegal substances, both anabolic and catabolic
steroids--that would be cortisone EPO, very highly illegal--
race-day painkillers, and diuretics. They raced on fractures
masked by joint injections, and they raced to exhaustion, but
they always run as fast as their bodies will allow. It is the
nature of the racehorse.
I would like every person in this room to take a moment
today to read the handout I have provided looking at our
Michigan horses that we have euthanized. You can see the lives
that were wasted. This is not speculation or hearsay; this is
hard evidence of what is happening to our horses, and it is
applicable to every low-level track in this country.
Perhaps the most disturbing part of our hard work is that
we are trying our best to clean up racing's mess without
financial support from the racing industry itself. An informal
poll of five different nonprofits revealed that less than 5
percent of our funding came from racing itself. Consider this:
The rehoming groups, there are several of them, many of them,
thank goodness. We need more. They receive less than 5 percent
from a multibillion-dollar industry to care for the horses that
they have made their living from.
Racing is not bothering to take care of its own horses, and
they are allowing the public, often not even racing fans, to
take care of the problems. This must change. It should be an
owner's responsibility to provide veterinary or surgical care
when they injure a horse through racing. It should be their
responsibility to maintain that horse during its
rehabilitation. Funds to care for these animals, if they do not
come from the owner and trainer, need to be set aside through
some mechanism such as starting fees or percentage of purses.
Caring for these animals should not be an afterthought, it
should be the first thought.
Racehorse rehoming programs are too scarce in this country.
It is time to put programs in place at every track in the
United States. It would not be difficult to do. To do anything
less is a disservice to the horses and to the people who want
the options to do the right thing.
The New York Times article published on June 15th states
that over 3,000 horses died at racing facilities in 2007. That
included many breeds; however, not every track was reporting. I
would like to respectfully object to this number. Nowhere are
they accounting for the horses that pulled up, vanned off, and
got sent to the sales. They are not accounting for the animals
whose ironic misfortune was to die in my barn instead of the
racetrack when X-rays of their joints revealed the abuses they
have suffered were irreparable.
This is happening daily, and this needs to stop. I am here
to speak for the horses who cannot speak for themselves, and I
am here to represent every group in this country dedicated to
their welfare. I am here to implore racing to address this
issue.
Thank you.
Mr. Hill. Thank you, Ms. Conrad.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Conrad follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.107
Mr. Hill. Mr. Waldrop.
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER M. WALDROP, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NATIONAL THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATION
Mr. Waldrop. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitfield and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
speak on behalf of the National Thoroughbred Racing
Association, its 65 member racetracks, 40 horsemen's groups,
and 1 million individual supporters. NTRA is thoroughbreds'
only centralized authority representing virtually all industry
stakeholders, including owners, breeders, trainers, racetracks,
riders, racing fans, and veterinarians. As such, we serve the
industry as a consensus builder around solutions to problems of
national importance for the horseracing industry.
With an industry as diverse as ours, consensus is often
difficult; nonetheless, our stakeholders agree that the health
and safety of our equine athletes is paramount to our sport.
From its earliest days pari-mutuel wagering has partnered with
State governments to sanction and regulate horseracing both as
a sport and as a pari-mutuel wagering industry. State
governments ensure the public of the integrity of our
operations through independent oversight and verification.
States also play a critical role in ensuring health, horse
health, and safety. States regulate our industry through State
racing commissions, and these individual commissions operate
under the umbrella of the Association of Racing Commissioners
International, or the RCI, which develops and promulgates
national standards called model rules for racing. And the
challenge of our State-regulated structure is to implement
uniform rules in all 38 racing jurisdictions.
Some are questioning whether our industry has the governing
structure necessary to effect change. I can't speak for the
distant past, but I can tell you that recently this industry
has been making great strides towards uniformity at the
national level, and the NTRA has played an important catalyst
to that change.
One of the foremost examples of cooperative uniform
solutions to industrywide challenges is the Racing Medication
and Testing Consortium. The RMTC is governed by a board of
directors consisting of 23 industry stakeholders, including
regulators, veterinarians, chemists, as well as owners,
trainers, breeders and racetracks from all breeds. Working with
the guidance from the RMTC, the RCI has developed a
comprehensive set of model rules which govern the use of drugs
and therapeutic medications in racing. These model rules have
now been adopted in 32 of 38 racing jurisdictions, including
all major racing States.
The RMTC has also helped the RCI develop tough but
standardized penalties for drug violations, and these tougher
penalties are now in place in almost half of all States that
conduct horseracing, with more States expected to adopt these
penalties soon.
Most recently we worked closely on a policy regarding
anabolic steroids. With the full support of the industry, the
RCI has called for all racing States to adopt a standardized
rule removing anabolic steroids from racing and race training
by the end of 2008. Some 28 States are now in the process of
removing anabolic steroids from competition, with the remaining
10 expected to follow suit shortly. Importantly, in the case of
anabolic steroids, we have made progress in a matter of months,
not years, proving that we can act quickly, collectively and
constructively. This industry is no longer a rudderless ship.
Likewise, for several years we have been addressing equine
health and safety on a national basis. In 2006, our industry
initiated numerous national studies in areas such as injury
reporting, track services, veterinary research, and equine
injury prevention; hence the panelists that we have today. The
Jockey Club's Thoroughbred Safety Committee is the perfect
example of cooperative work done to address our sports health
and safety issues. In fact, you heard earlier from Mr. Marzelli
more safety measures that have been recommended, and the NTRA
strongly supports those and will help make sure that those
changes are implemented.
I have stressed to you the last thing this industry needs
is another layer of regulation. A large Federal bureaucracy
funded by yet another tax on our long-suffering customers is
simply not what we need.
We are making progress towards uniformity in drug testing
and medication rules; removing steroids from racing
competition; implementing a great injury reporting system, as
you have heard; exploring new synthetic racetrack surfaces to
reduce injuries; continuing to conduct industry-funded research
into the cause of the equine injuries.
The horseracing industry should be allowed to continue its
efforts to build a more uniform and cohesive health and safety
program for its participants. We at the NTRA and our industry
stakeholders are uniquely qualified and fully committed to
working through our sports complex issues as they relate to
equine health and safety, relying on sound science and
research. I believe that the NTRA's leadership, plus improved
drug and safety rules, more transparency, expanded research,
coupled with the continued oversight of this committee and the
States themselves is the best recipe for progress that we all
see. Our horses and our fans deserve nothing less.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waldrop follows:]
Statement of Alexander M. Waldrop
Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member Whitfield, and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
speak on behalf of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association
and its 65 member racetracks, 40 horsemen's groups and one
million individual supporters.
NTRA is Thoroughbred racing's only centralized authority
representing virtually all industry stakeholders, including
owners, breeders, trainers, racetracks, riders, racing fans and
veterinarians. As such, we serve the industry as a consensus
builder around solutions to problems of national importance to
the horseracing industry.
With an industry as diverse as ours, consensus is sometimes
difficult. Nonetheless, our stakeholders agree that the health
and safety of our equine athletes is paramount to our sport.
From its earliest days, pari-mutuel horseracing has
partnered with state governments to sanction and regulate horse
racing both as a sport and as a pari-mutuel wagering industry.
State government insures the public of the integrity of our
operations through independent oversight and verification.
States regulate our industry through state racing
commissions. These individual commissions operate under the
umbrella of the Association of Racing Commissioners
International or RCI, which develops and promulgates national
standards called model rules of racing. The challenge of our
state regulated structure is to implement uniform rules in all
38 racing jurisdictions.
Some are questioning whether our industry has the governing
structure necessary to effect change. I can't speak to the
distant past but I can tell you that recently this industry has
been making great strides towards uniformity at the national
level and the NTRA has been an important catalyst for that
change.
One of the foremost examples of cooperative, uniform
solutions to industry-wide challenges is the Racing Medication
and Testing Consortium. The RMTC is governed by a Board of
Directors consisting of 23 industry stakeholder groups
including state regulators, veterinarians, and chemists, as
well as horse owners, trainers, breeders, and racetracks from
all racing breeds.
Working with guidance from the RMTC, the RCI has developed
a comprehensive set of model rules which govern the use of
drugs and therapeutic medications in racing. These model rules
have now been adopted in 32 of 38 racing jurisdictions,
including all major racing states. The RMTC has also helped the
RCI develop tough but fair standardized penalties for drug
violations. These tougher penalties are now in place in almost
half of all states that conduct horseracing with more states
expected to adopt the model penalties soon.
Most recently we have worked closely on a policy regarding
anabolic steroids. With the full support of our industry, the
RCI has called for all racing states to adopt a standardized
rule removing anabolic steroids from racing and race training
by the end of 2008. Some 28 states are now in the process of
removing anabolic steroids from competition, with the remaining
10 expected to follow suit shortly.
Likewise, for several years we have been addressing equine
health and safety issues on a national basis. In 2006, our
industry initiated numerous national studies in areas such as
injury reporting, track surfaces, veterinary research, and
equine injury prevention programs. The Jockey Club's
Thoroughbred Safety Committee is a perfect example of the
cooperative work being done to address our sport's health and
safety issues at the national level. In fact, as you heard
earlier from Mr. Marzelli, more safety measures have been
recommended and the NTRA will help in advocating for these
changes.
The last thing this industry needs is another layer of
bureaucracy. A Department of Horse-Land Security funded by yet
another tax on our long-suffering customers? No thanks.
We are making progress towards uniformity in drug testing
and medication rules; removing steroids from racing
competition; implementing an injury reporting system; exploring
new, synthetic track surfaces to reduce injuries; and
continuing to conduct industry-funded research into the causes
of equine injuries.
The horseracing industry should be allowed to continue its
efforts to build a more uniform and cohesive health and safety
program for its participants. We at the NTRA and our industry
stakeholders are uniquely qualified and fully committed to
working through our sport's complex issues as they relate to
equine health and safety, relying on sound science and
research. I believe that the NTRA's leadership, plus improved
drug and safety rules, more transparency and expanded research,
coupled with continued oversight from this committee and the
states is the best recipe for the progress we all seek. Our
horses and our fans deserve no less.
----------
Mr. Hill. Thank you, panel members. We appreciate your
attendance here and you taking the time to come before this
committee.
We have been called for votes. One of the skills that a
Member of Congress has to have is to fly by the seat of your
pants all the time. We apologize for this. But what I want to
do is give every panel member the opportunity to ask one
question, and then we will adjourn the committee.
Ms. Conrad, I would like to start with you. Can you
describe what your horses go through as they go through
withdrawal from steroids and other drugs in their bodies when
your organization rescues them?
Ms. Conrad. The problems we see, they vary depending what
drugs they are on. Unfortunately we don't have access to the
vet records, so we don't know exactly what they are on. We are
working backwards. I would say the most damaging things we see
are the corticosteroids, the injections, the systemwide
steroids that are given. We see mass weight loss, mass hair
loss, loss of condition, depression, lethargy. They go through
a terrible, terrible withdrawal period. And it is not just the
anabolic steroids. That is the buzzword that has been floating
around. That is not the worst one, in my opinion. It is not a
great steroid, but a lot of times on the low-level tracks is
what is holding these horses together.
Mr. Hill. Wasn't Big Brown on steroids?
Ms. Conrad. From what I understand, yes.
Mr. Hill. That is not what happened to him in the last
race, is it, withdrawal from it?
Ms. Conrad. I do not know. I do not know. It was hot. It
could have been a deep track. I don't know.
Mr. Hill. Dr. Soma, would you know the answer to that
question?
Dr. Soma. Based on the last known administration, he wasn't
on any anabolic steroids at the time, based on the time frame
between when he was----
Mr. Hill. Mr. Whitfield.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. I will say that Jack Van Berg has
won more horses than any living trainer, who testified earlier
and is back there. I asked him that question last night, and he
said he thought it had to do more with the split hoof than
anything else.
So having said that, Mr. Waldrop, I would disagree with you
in the sense that, yes, the NTRA does have a partnership with
State government. It also has a partnership with the Federal
Government in that the industry came and asked for the
Interstate Horse Racing Act to be adopted. It came back and
asked for the help of the Interstate--from the Federal
Government dealing with the Wire Act and with Internet
gambling, getting exemptions for that. And I don't think it is
unreasonable for the Federal Government to set minimum
standards. The representative of the Jockey Club and you
yourself have admitted that you do not have the enforcement
mechanism to require anyone to do anything. And I think the
first panel displayed very clearly that there are serious
problems in the industry.
I have talked to a lot of different racing authorities in
each State. There is no agreement on the penalty levels of any
of these so-called uniform rules. There is total confusion
about the anabolic steroids. Dr. Kate Lynn, who is the expert,
in my view, says that you cannot regulate them; they should be
banned in their entirety.
So I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Soma. I think you
pointed out very clearly that Lasix and also anabolic steroids
are not used so much for therapeutic reasons as they are for a
performance enhancer. And other jurisdictions around the world
do not allow anabolic steroids or Bute or Lasix.
So with that we have other Members who have been here just
as long as I have, so I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Hill. Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Conrad, you had mentioned that this system of steroids
that are used, the blame goes to veterinarians, owners, and
trainers. I think that is what you said; is that true?
Ms. Conrad. Yes.
Mr. Stearns. I would ask each of the panel to the best of
their personal opinion, where predominantly is the blame to go
for this system of steroids. With the veterinarians, the
owners, or the trainers or all three? Dr. Soma, just go down
the line.
Dr. Soma. I think it is all three, because if a trainer----
Mr. Stearns. I understand. We don't have a lot of time.
Dr. Soma. All three, yes.
Mr. Stearns. Dr. Stover.
Dr. Stover. Well, perhaps we should all take some
responsibility.
Mr. Stearns. So all three are equally at fault, in your
opinion? Aren't the veterinarians just reacting to what the
trainers request?
Dr. Stover. I think that is a difficult question to answer.
I think we are all responsible for the horses' welfare.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Next.
Dr. McIlwraith. I agree. We are collectively responsible
for their welfare.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Next.
Dr. Scollay. I would agree, but I would also add in
racetrack management and other stakeholders.
Mr. Stearns. The pressure comes from them also?
Dr. Scollay. Sure, to fill races, get horses to run. If you
are allotted stalls, you are expected to perform. And so there
is no one group, it is everybody.
Mr. Stearns. Now, Ms. Conrad, you can actually put the
blame on somebody here. Everybody is waffling on this and
saying everybody is responsible. Surely you must, from your
perspective, think there is one group that has a little more
pressure than the others. All three can't be equally at fault.
Ms. Conrad. Actually I think they can. It depends on if you
have a young vet that shows up at the track and wants to make a
living, and the trainer says--they find out a horse has a
fracture. The trainer says, inject it, or I am not employing
you any longer. They have to make a living. I mean, it is
complex.
Mr. Stearns. OK. Mr. Waldrop.
Mr. Waldrop. We are all responsible. The industry as a
whole let this practice continue too long, but we resolved in
our commitment to stop it by the end of this year.
Mr. Hill. OK. We have 5 minutes before we vote.
Mr. Pitts.
Mr. Pitts. One more question. Ms. Conrad, your stories, the
tragic stories, are very compelling. You explain the problem.
Could you tell us a little bit more about the solution that you
envision and the actions that are necessary to reach it?
Ms. Conrad. Echoing the panel, the first panel, if you get
rid of a lot of these drugs, these horses will not be able to
run. The problem will address itself over time. It will address
the soundness issues. If a horse's bloodline tends towards
ankle problems, and you can no longer inject that joint 2 days
before it runs, that horse is not going to run any longer. That
horse is not going to be a valuable commodity as a breeding
animal. That will resolve a lot of the problems. Funding for
the groups that take care of the animals that aren't getting
taken care of, that is going to solve--it is a mandate, but it
is needed. It is needed right now.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hill. If I could ask the Committee to give unanimous
consent to have the following organizations' statements entered
into the--their statements entered into the record. It is the
American Association of Equine Practitioners, People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, Cosigners and Commercial
Breeder's Association, Racing Medication and Testing
Consortium. Without objection, I would like to have these
written statements entered into the record.
[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.]
Mr. Hill. The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.115
Arthur Hancock, Responses to Questions from Hon. Bobby L. Rush
1. You are vocal in support of a central league to govern
horse racing. How does Congress help get the sport there?
I can only tell you that this industry is in big trouble
and that our only hope for survival is for us to have a central
league. There are 38 racing jurisdictions and there is only one
way for us to establish this league, and that is through
Congress. We cannot operate like Nascar, because racing is
governed by the state in which it takes place, and every state
has its own rules and regulations. Also, our industry
organizations have absolutely no control over these states and
their racing rules. Therefore, we are a rudderless ship, and we
need help. We need Congress to fix the rudder and only you all
know how to do that. I can only suggest that you re-open the
Horse Racing Act of 1978 and eliminate trainers from the
language. Owners must have the right to dictate their own
destiny. They are the ones who make it all happen and who take
all the risks. Also, Congress can issue ``guidelines for
excellence'' that must be adhered to by the respective states.
We don't need to re-invent the wheel, just do what the rest of
the world does regarding rules, regulations, and medication
policies. This can be simply done if Congress so chooses, I
believe, by re-visiting and changing for the better the Horse
Racing Act of 1978. The word ``horsemen'', which is defined as
owners and trainers, needs to be changed to ``racehorse
owners''. This will give the owners the right to run their own
business and it will permit us to establish a central league to
govern horse racing.
2. You're a 4th generation horseman. Can you talk about how
the Thoroughbred breed has changed over the years?
The Thoroughbred breed has become weaker over the years.
Horses make nearly 50% fewer starts than they did 50 years ago
and one of the main reasons for this is the permissive
medication policy in America. It permits horses to run big
races who normally couldn't win a moderate race, and these
chemical horses go to the breeding shed. The results are clear.
It's disgraceful to our industry and it is a national disgrace
as well.
3. You're famous for owning the late SUNDAY SILENCE, one of
the all-time great racehorses. You sold him to Japanese
interests, and he single handedly put Japanese breeding on the
map as a great sire, and his pedigree was much different from
the current bloodlines that are so popular in today's
commercial breeding circles. Looking back, what are your
thoughts on SUNDAY SILENCE as a sire and what he could have
contributed to American breeding?
SUNDAY SILENCE was a world class sire and would have
greatly contributed to American breeding. It is sad that
American breeders did not realize this, as the Japanese did.
One of the reasons for this is that the same clique that has
brought racing to the state it is in today, spread the word
that SUNDAY SILENCE was merely a freak race horse and that he
would not make a good stallion. Consequently, people shied away
from taking shares in him which was a tragedy. He was a
complete outcross and would have done us proud. These are the
same people who long to preserve the status quo because they
want no interference with their respective domains of self-
perceived power.
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.127
Wayne McIlwraith, Responses to Questions from Hon. Bobby L. Rush
Do you believe anabolic steroids should be completely
banned except for very narrow, therapeutic circumstances?
Yes.
Do you believe lasix should be banned?
Although lasix has been shown to reduce exercise induced
pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH), it has also been shown to be
performance enhancing and in my opinion it should be banned on
race day. Presently, nearly all horses race on it and we are
out of step with the rest of the world.
Do you believe that analgesic medications such as bute
should be banned or severely restricted?
Currently no non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are
allowed to be used on race day. The current laws regarding a
certain allowable level are good in my opinion.
Do you believe Thoroughbreds are becoming more fragile?
Comparative figures for the number of starts would
insinuate strongly that the durability of racehorses is less.
There is little specific data on fragility but this needs to be
looked at.
Are breakdowns more frequent?
Data is available from the California post mortem program
which would indicate that breakdowns are not becoming more
frequent but we are not lowering the incidence. Recent data
over the past year insinuates a decrease from 2 to 1.5 per 1000
starts with synthetic race tracks.
Do we have accurate data to make such determinations?
Yes such data was presented at the Welfare and Safety
Summit in October 2006 by Dr. Stover of UC Davis (also on the
panel).
Do we have the technology to prevent more breakdowns from
happening? Is it feasible to detect micro-fractures before they
get worse?
Yes. Nuclear scintigraphy (bone scanning) and computer
tomography (CT) have the ability to detect microdamage but are
not practical as screening tools. Our recent work at Colorado
State University in a project in southern California and funded
by the Grayson-Jockey Club Foundation showed that we can detect
much of this damage with blood biomarkers and this has the
potential to be a useful, practical technique for identifying
the horse at risk.
Many horsemen say that horse's bones aren't as strong as
they used to be or that their bodies are just too big, because
of breeding and handling. What does the science say?
There is no scientific evidence at this stage to say the
bones are not as strong or that bodies are just too big.
Scientific evaluation of this is difficult but should be
attempted in the future.
What do you recommend industry can do to help prevent
catastrophic breakdowns and other injuries at racetracks?
Do the science. The principal areas where we have real
possibilities are 1. Identifying prior damage that leads to
catastrophic injury and early recognition of this damage by the
use of micro blood biomarkers and novel imaging techniques. 2.
Scientific evaluation of various racetracks rather than
unrealistic expectations for synthetic tracks. Dr. Mick
Peterson, from the University of Maine, has developed an
objective method of assessing the tracks and this machine
should be available at all racetracks. 3. Strict rules on
medication, and 4. Further work on durability of race horses as
has been started by the Durability Index that came out of the
2006 Racing Summit.
----------
Mary C. Scollay, Responses to Questions from Hon. Bobby L. Rush
1. Do you believe anabolic steroids should be completely
banned except for very narrow, therapeutic circumstances?
Yes, this position is reflected in the language of the
anabolic steroid rule currently under review by the Kentucky
Horse Racing Commission. There is no legitimate indication for
the administration of anabolic androgenic steroids in healthy
horses in training and/or racing.
2. Do you believe lasix should be banned?
Our understanding of the effects of furosemide has evolved
to include concerns about its ability to enhance performance.
Until ongoing research data is analyzed and published, I
recommend taking no action to ban furosemide. I do, however,
believe that the jurisdictions currently permitting a maximum
dose of 500 mg (10 ml) should reduce that maximum to 250 mg (5
ml).
Currently, furosemide is the only medication that has been
demonstrated to reduce the incidence and/or severity of
exercise induced pulmonary hemorrhage. Recognizing that upwards
of 85% of horses performing at maximal exertion will experience
EIPH (and this extends beyond Thoroughbred racing to other
disciplines such as barrel racing and competitive pulling
events for draft horses) I believe it would be inhumane to
withdraw the medication given its documented ability to prevent
or mitigate the onset of the condition.
The medication is not without negative side effects
including dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, and muscle
cramping. If an alternative medication were determined to be
as, or more effective, and without the associated adverse
events, then yes, I would recommend furosemide be banned.
Pending the development of such a medication, I believe that
furosemide should be closely regulated, but not banned.
3. Do you believe that analgesic medications such as bute
should be banned or severely restricted?
I believe that we need to understand the scope of the use
of analgesic medications before we could address restricting or
banning their use. There has been a tremendous focus on race
day medication, but the use of medications outside of
competition has not been examined. If we accept that
catastrophic injuries are the cumulative result of minor
repetitive injuries (some clinically apparent, others perhaps
not), then do we not need to understand if the administration
of analgesics outside of competition has any association with
the race-related catastrophic injury?
I would strongly oppose a ban on analgesic medications;
they have a significant therapeutic role when used judiciously.
We need to identify the boundaries of `judicious' use to
prevent the masking (deliberate or otherwise) of conditions
which may be an early warning for more severe conditions to
follow.
4. Do you believe Thoroughbreds are becoming more fragile?
No, I believe we are placing increased athletic demands on
them which in turn put them at increased risk of injury.
5. Are breakdowns more frequent?
We have no way of knowing. The data does not exist. There
is the appearance that racing injuries are occurring more
frequently, but that may be a media related phenomenon. When
twelve race cards can be viewed from a single site, the
likelihood of observing a horse being injured has increased by
twelve fold. When the only way to see a horse race was to go to
the racetrack to watch the live, on-site racing, the exposure
of a racing injury was considerably reduced when compared to
the current environment that includes internet, simulcasting,
TVG, HRTV, etc.
Moving forward, this is one of the questions that the
Equine Injury Database will be able to answer. Previous data
cannot be recaptured, but questions like this one will be able
to be answered-factually-as the database accumulates
information over time.
6. The Jockey Club recently announced the launching of a
nation-wide database that tracks Thoroughbred injuries. Are
tracks required to report injuries to this database or is
participation voluntary? Are injuries from training also
reported?
Participation is voluntary, but the industry response has
been overwhelmingly positive. This initiative alone proves that
the racing industry is able to achieve consensus and speak with
a unified voice. I estimate that greater than 80% of the race
starts in North America in 2008 will be represented in the
Equine Injury Database, and I further expect that by the end of
2009, there will be 100% participation.
The program is being expanded to include reporting of
health conditions-injuries, illness, etc-outside of the scope
of a race. Training injuries are now being reported in several
jurisdictions as part of a pilot project.
7. Before the data present a more clear picture, what
immediate recommendations do you have for the industry to help
prevent catastrophic breakdowns and other injuries at
racetracks?
I would urge those in authority to base decisions on fact
and not speculation. There have been assertions brought forth
in many forums that are easily refutable by scientific data.
The issue of racing injuries has been driven by emotion. That
emotion has served as a catalyst for the industry to seek
change-but the change must be based on an objective, scientific
foundation or we risk doing something differently, but not
better.
There should be a requirement that all entered horses
undergo a pre-race exam by a regulatory veterinarian. There
should be follow up exams post race on any horse whose
condition was questionable immediately following the running of
a race. Any horse determined to be injured/unsound/ or
otherwise unfit for competition should not be permitted to
enter to race until having been released by a regulatory
veterinarian. A horse working in front of the regulatory
veterinarian for release from the Vets' List should be in
compliance with race day medication rules and be subjected to
post-work testing to confirm compliance. Information collected
and maintained by regulatory veterinarians with regard to the
racing soundness of horses should be able to be shared between
racing jurisdictions without fear of legal repercussions with
respect to violation of confidentiality.
There should be penalties in place (of sufficient severity
as to serve as a deterrent) for a trainer who attempts or
succeeds in entering a Vet Listed horse in another
jurisdiction.
There should be accountability for those trainers whose
horses are disproportionately represented on the Vets' List for
being unsound/injured/ or otherwise unfit to race.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6803.131