Indiana Horse Racing Commission Meeting Notes

Date: July 18, 2007

Please note: These are NOT official minutes of the IHRC meeting.  They are notes developed by our representative attending the meeting.

The Indiana Horse Racing Commission (IHRC) met on Wednesday, July 18, 2007, at Hoosier Park.  IHRC Chairman Sarah McNaught called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m., asking those present to turn off all electronic devices which may interrupt the proceedings of the meeting.  Commissioner Grimes was absent.  Minutes from the June 22, 2007 meeting were approved by the Commissioners, as written.  The meeting then progressed to the other items included on the agenda.

The first item on the agenda was the presentation of the Chairman’s Award to the outgoing members of the Indiana Standardbred Advisory Board, Jeff Henson and Dick Link.  Each of these gentlemen was presented a plaque for their service to the industry.  Chairman McNaught began the presentation by recognizing the newly appointed replacements for the outgoing members.  She named Byron Hooley, Dwayne Rhule, and Tim Graber, asking them to stand if present.  Only Rhule was in attendance at the meeting.  Chairman McNaught then turned the floor over to Jessica Barnes, Director of Standardbred Racing, for comments about the award recipients.

Barnes began her comments by stating the two individuals being honored are very different.  She stated, “They have different backgrounds, different experiences, and different roles in the industry, yet both have the same goal.  Both of them have always worked to serve, protect, and foster the growth of the Indiana Standardbred Industry.”  Further, she noted they have both been an integral part of the Standardbred Industry and its success in Indiana.

When discussing Link, Barnes highlighted the fact he has served on the Indiana Standardbred Advisory Board (formerly the Indiana Standardbred Board of Regulations) for nearly two decades.  Researching meeting archives, copies of the minutes show him on the board since 1989.  This was when Governor Robert Orr made his appointment.  She said, “Let’s just say he has been a permanent fixture in the past.  He has dedicated the past 18 years to serving this industry.”  Further, she mentioned Link’s other roles, as a horseman and race secretary of the Fayette County Fair in Connersville, Indiana.  She ended her comments by stating, “He is a man of few words, always looking at the overall picture.”

Barnes then offered praise for Henson, noting he has served on the Indiana Standardbred Advisory Board since 2001.  He immediately found a leadership position on the board, serving as Chairman for nearly 6 years.  Henson utilized promotional tools and brought innovative ideas to the board, including a grant program for the Indiana fairs and Blood Gas Testing for the events at the Indiana State Fair.

Barnes went on to explain how serving on various boards is often a thankless job.  It often involves making decisions which may not be the most popular, but are certainly necessary.  When looking at the great program they have helped create, Barnes said she felt they would agree it was worth all of their work.  Repeating her feelings about the outgoing members of Standardbred Breed Development recognized at the last meeting, Barnes stated, “I feel honored to have had the opportunity to work with and learn from these two extraordinary individuals.”  She thanked them for their years of service to the State and horsemen of Indiana.

Henson then spoke, offering words of appreciation for his award.  He thanked Barnes for her work and support given to the board.  In addition, he thanked both racetracks for their help over the years, noting each had hosted races when rain had resulted in canceling events at the Indiana State Fair.  He praised the tracks for how accommodating they had been when hosting the Indiana Sires Stakes events, stating he is confident they will be there for future boards.  Henson also offered his opinion of the newly appointed board members.  He said, “The Governor did a good job….”  In closing, he reminded those present Linda Dever will now be the race secretary for all the events at the Indiana State Fairgrounds.

Link also spoke briefly, stating he would like to ditto the comments from Henson about Barnes and the racetracks.  He added, “It has been a privilege to work on the Board.  Not all decisions made have been popular, but they were made with the best interest of the horsemen in mind.”

The next item on the agenda was consideration of emergency rule regarding the banning of toe grabs.  Joe Gorajec, IHRC Executive Director, presented the topic to the commission.  He began by informing those present the rule drafted was derived from the RCI Model Rule on racing plates and toe grabs.  This parent rule was created based on the results of research and scientific testing which showed toe grabs of greater than a certain length were detrimental to the safety and well-being of the horse.  Gorajec noted he has been to a number of meetings talking about various rules and this testimony has been by far the most compelling.  As a result, this issue was put on a fast track in Indiana.  Knowing Indiana has two (2) flat racing meets (spring & fall), he wanted to address this over the summer.  Such a timeline would allow the rule to take effect at the upcoming Thoroughbred/Quarter Horse Meet at Hoosier Park.  In describing the rule, Gorajec said the rule is straight-forward.  It bans toe grabs higher than 4 mm (approximately 1/8 inch).  The “low toe” is currently the most popular shoe used in Indiana for Thoroughbreds.  The toe grab on this particular shoe is under 4 mm and permissible by the proposed rule.  Under the rule, it is the highest height of a grab to be permitted.  Gorajec ended his presentation by strongly recommending the commission adopt the rule, which was written for Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses only right now.  The issue would be left open for consideration in Standardbreds down the road, if evidence supporting such a rule is found.  With that background, Chairman McNaught asked for industry input.

 
Tom Mosley, who is a QHRAI board member and trainer, but a blacksmith by vocation, addressed the commission.  First, he clarified his understanding that the ban discussed only applied to front shoes.  He then asked about a grab on the outer rim of shoes, making sure this rule did not involve shoes of this type.  Mosley informed the commission his main concern was the difference between Quarter Horses and Thoroughbreds.  His suggestion was to examine the QH separately, do testing, and re-visit the issue.  He paralleled the styles of racing to a drag race versus a NASCAR event, meaning one is straight while the other includes turns.  Mosley stated, “With the shoe concerns, fatigue is a big issue.  In a straight, short run, fatigue is not a factor.”  He noted everyone wants safety for the horses, but said QH racing does not see the breakdowns and catastrophic injuries found in Thoroughbred racing.  Further, he said he wanted the commission to recognize the difference between the two breeds.  Mosley discussed the physics of a QH leaving the gate, as opposed to a Thoroughbred.  In QH racing, horses are leaving the gate at top speed.  Evidence can be found in the big impressions left in the dirt.  Mosley said he feels slipping while leaving the gate is more dangerous in QH racing than the potential risk of a horse breaking down.  He then offered the commission samples of shoes with an outer rim, like are often used on turf tracks.

Addressing Mosley’s concern that the rule should not include QH, Chairman McNaught read from a report indicating there was some data to support applying the same ban to QH.  Mosley responded by saying the data mentioned was from New Mexico, where QH race a distance of a half-mile or more.  In Indiana, QH run a maximum distance of a quarter-mile.

Steve Stults, with HBPA, then spoke, stating, “The Indiana TB horsemen appreciate the commission undertaking this investigation and support it.”  He said they want to make a decision with the commission’s guidance and support.

 

Gorajec then took the opportunity to offer his thoughts on the QH plates presented.  He said one reason the study was conducted was the theory that shoes contributed to catastrophic injuries.  Moreover, some shoes linked to various injuries have been used for years and years.  The idea of banning such shoes is counter-intuitive to what many horsemen may think.  Gorajec stated he did not want to discredit Mosley’s testimony, but trusts the sources of the information received and presented to commission.  He felt they were the best source of impartial opinion available.  Finally, he offered to take the shoes presented to the committee studying toe grabs and accept their decision on whether or not to allow the shoes.

Commissioner Armstrong asked Mosley a direct question.  He said, “Are you suggesting using shoes without toe grabs is dangerous?”  Mosley’s reply reiterated his earlier statement about QH leaving the gate at top speed, where slipping could be a danger.

 

Chairman McNaught pointed out a portion of the research which indicated rimmed shoes are safer, as they help keep the foot level.  Gorajec repeated his offer to consult the research committee for their opinion.  A motion was then made to accept this plan, which passed unanimously.

 

Following the agenda for the meeting, the next topic was consideration of emergency rues regarding out-of-competition testing.  Gorajec opened the discussion, stating this is an interesting and timely topic.  He noted this rule is the culmination of years (if not decades) of research and concern.  Further, he explained there are drugs which are blood doping agents.  One big culprit, used as an example, is EPO.  Gorajec stated the use of this drug has destroyed the sport of human cycling.  Once other sports had issues with these drugs, it was presumed they were used in horse racing.  This led to a race within regulatory agencies to develop a way to test for it. 

Gorajec explained drugs like those listed in the rule presented work differently than most other drugs in circulation.  Most drugs tend to work while in the bloodstream.  On the other hand, these drugs signal the body to produce more red blood cells.  The drugs themselves only stay in system at a detectible level for 3-4 days.  However, the beneficial effects last 7-10 days.  The drugs work to increase red blood cells to their maximum at a week to 10 days after the drug is injected.  With this functionality, catching the drug is a problem.  If the test is performed as part of a post race detection program, it is never found.  Gorajec said horsemen who know how it works, and use it for the future benefit, will not inject a horse within 3-4 days of a race because it would result in a positive test.  He added, “This would allow use of these agents with no impunity.”

Basically, the rule being considered gives the commission the authority to go any where at any time to test for these substances.  It was a rule adopted by RCI at their annual convention.  Gorajec added two states have already adopted the rule, with New Jersey also in the process of developing a rule for out-of-competition testing.

Gorajec then explained the current EPO test does not test for the drug, only an antibody to it.  The newer test was developed about a year ago.  The key to the testing is it must be done out-of-competition to hit the correct timeframe.  The rule proposed would be utilized at the racetracks.  It also includes provisions which allow the commission to go to farms and/or training facilities to draw samples for testing.  Gorajec proposed a minimum suspension of 10 years for anyone found violating the rules.  He said such a lengthy suspension should serve as a useful deterrent.

When Chairman McNaught asked for industry comments, Stults (HBPA) was the first to address the commission.  He said the TB horsemen have great concerns about the need for racing on a level playing field, especially with the coming of slots.  With that in mind, he understands and appreciates the need for testing.  Furthermore, he said he feels those with stables based out-of-state should be held to the same standards as those located in Indiana.  He said, “We want testing to be fair and consistent for all horses at all times.”

Shirley Tresner, representing QH expressed serious concern with the criteria used to single out specific horsemen.  She asked, “Must we all be brushed with the same stroke as the cheaters?”  She also noted the east coast tracks using the out-of-competition testing have caught no one so far.  Tresner also brought up the fact many involved in the industry have outside employment.  This means being available for testing at a specified time on demand may present a problem.  She ended her comments by stating the leading trainer at the recent Indiana Downs meet was from Michigan.  These horses were out-of-state ship-ins.

Herb Hoovler, representing TB, said his opinion mirrored that of Stults.  He asked the commission to keep the testing fair and consistent.  Specifically, he wanted to have the commission test one out-of-state horse for each Indiana-based horse tested.

Jeff Edwards then spoke, indicating the Standardbreds stance was in line with that of the TB.  Edwards also brought up concerns about the stakes in Indiana with large purses.  He mentioned the Dan Patch and Hoosier Cup as examples.  These events offer large purses, yet testing the participants would be difficult.

 

Jack Holton was the next person to address the commission.  Holton owns a farm where he houses his own horses, as well as other boarders.  His farm has gates, as well as no trespassing signs.  Holton asked, “Why does getting an IHRC license make us give up our rights to protection from search and seizure?”  Gorajec asked the IHRC Attorney, Robin Babbitt, to respond to his question.

Babbitt stated the legislature had given the IHRC the right to make certain areas subject to search and seizure when they passed the legislation for pari-mutuel racing.  He also noted another basis for allowing such occurrences.  Basically, when a regulated industry is involved, the laws are different than those for someone simply walking down the street.

 

Duane Swingley, a TB horseman, offered an opinion for dealing with big training outfits based out-of-state.  If they are competing for Indiana money, he said he would like to see them subject to broad testing.  In fact, he said he would like a commission representative to go to their base and check the whole barn.

Stacey Ruddick, a SB horseman, expressed a logistical concern with the proposed rule.  She began by stating, “I am all for testing.  You can come to our farm and test any horse at any time because I have nothing to hide.”  Her concern was for horsemen with other engagements for their horses.  To illustrate her point, Ruddick used an example.  She used a hypothetical situation of a horse competing in Indiana, but later going to the Meadowlands (in New Jersey) for racing events.  Posing a question, Ruddick asked, “Am I supposed to haul the horse cross country for testing or would you allow the racing commission in New Jersey to draw the blood?”

Chairman McNaught was the first to respond, stating she foresees reciprocity of this rule with other states in the future.  Gorajec added it is not likely the commission would choose to test a horse scheduled to compete in events elsewhere.  Agreeing with Chairman McNaught, he said he believes the model rules will become popular and be adopted by other states.  This is certainly his hope for the future.

Gorajec then offered some closing comments on the subject of out-of-competition testing.  He attempted to address some of the concerns of those testifying before the commission.  As written, the rule has amendments to the RCI Model Rule.  Among amendments is the option of requiring the horse to be tested to report to the track for testing.  This provision would be utilized to expand the IHRC’s ability to test out-of-state based horses because they would have to come to Indiana for testing.  Gorajec admitted a 1:1 protocol for testing in-state versus out-of-state horses would be very difficult to follow.

To address the concern over which horses would be tested, he broke the potential subjects for testing into two (2) categories.  The first category includes specific horses or trainers targeted if there is suspicion of use of a blood doping agent.  Suspicion could result from a reversal in form, a tip from another horseman, or other source.  The second category is strict deterrence.  Gorajec noted knowing the random testing is occurring, with the lengthy suspension as a punishment, should halt the activity.

As far as going into the field for testing on private property, Gorajec noted the IHRC currently has an employee (Harley Green) who goes to various farms without notice to check for residence in the mare-based program for TB.  Historically, Green has had full cooperation when doing inspections.  For testing, a failure to cooperate would result in a rule violation.  As a result, those breaking the rule would not be allowed to race until the matter was settled.  Such lack of cooperation could put other innocent people in jeopardy by keeping their horses from being able to race.

During the closing discussion among the commission members, Armstrong said he agrees this testing is a step forward, but he wants the out-of-state issue addressed.

Gorajec responded by saying adopting the rule may result in some people choosing not to race in Indiana.  He said he expects to see more out-of-competition testing rules adopted and utilized by various racing jurisdictions in the future.  Further, he said, “If we don’t adopt this rule, we send a message that you can come to Indiana and use EPO.”  Over time, Gorajec said he believes the horsemen will want to see more out-of-competition testing.

Commissioner Schaefer stated his agreement with Armstrong’s stance.  He wants to work on the aspect of out-of-state testing to make it fair for everyone racing in Indiana.

Babbitt was then asked for input.  He stated the legislature has only given the commission the authority to act within its state borders.  Besides requiring out-of-state based horses to report to the track there is the possibility of working with other racing jurisdictions to establish a chain of custody of samples to allow testing in other states.

On a side note, Gorajec offered something for the industry to consider in the future.  He clearly stated it was not part of the rule currently being considered.  The suggestion is the result of dialogue among horsemen about horses being claimed and improving dramatically.  Gorajec suggested a possible future discussion of requiring claimed horses to be stabled at the racetrack and/or within the state.

To make a decision on the rule before them, Chairman McNaught deferred to Babbitt for appropriate wording.  He suggested modifying the wording of various parts of the rule to agree with the changes made to utilize out-of-competition testing.  This cascading effect would update all associated rules.  A motion was made to accept the rules with the changes, which passed unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was approval of laboratories for out-of-competition testing.  Gorajec explained only certain laboratories can test for certain substances.  Based on the IHRC rule change the specimen would be divided into three (3) parts.  The first sample would be used for screening and be sent to Truesdail Laboratory.  (This is not the more expensive confirmatory test.)  The second sample would be used for confirmation and be submitted to the University of Pennsylvania.  If necessary, the final sample would be used for split sample testing, going to the University of Florida.  Gorajec noted all of the laboratories mentioned have agreed to participate in the outlined testing program.  Chairman McNaught made a motion to approve the laboratories for testing.  The motion passed with a unanimous vote of the commission.

Returning to the agenda, the next topic was consideration of the repeal of the rules regarding Erythropoietin and Darbepoietin.  Gorajec began the discussion by offering a brief historical account of the path used to get to the present EPO testing.  He noted there was a test for the antibody to EPO available when the racing industry was asking for testing for the drug.  Since the drug is a human recombinant, a horse’s immune system views it as a foreign agent (an antigen) and makes antibodies against it.

Even in the beginning, there was debate over whether this type of test should be utilized.  The commission knew going in there was the issue of a possible false negative.  Gorajec stated these instances did not really concern him.  The current rule for EPO testing was put in place in 2004.  Since then, it has been a good deterrent.  The test’s usefulness is that it has lessened the occurrence of EPO use somewhat.  Besides the false negatives, there is also an inherent risk for false positives.  Because of these inconsistencies, the commission decided not to take action against a trainer when the rule was drafted.  Instead, the decision was made to put the horse on the shelf and not allow racing until such time the horse tests clean for the antibody.  To date, approximately twenty (20) horses have tested positive for the antibody.  An issue encountered by the commission has been the amount of time a horse can test positive for the antibody.  It can be a very long time, years in some cases.

Gorajec said he asked Dr. Scot Waterman with the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium for input on the use of the antibody test.  Waterman’s recommendation was not to use the antibody test in any way (even for simply putting the horse on the shelf) if the decision is made to proceed with out-of-competition testing.  When describing the antibody test, Gorajec noted, “The bottom line is there is not a lot of science behind the testing.”  Although the newer test is more expensive, it is a better test.  Dr. Sams at the University of Florida (formerly Ohio State University) thinks the antibody test is prone to false positives.  In Sams’ opinion, it is an unnecessary risk to use it for testing.  Gorajec added he thinks the effectiveness of this test pales in comparison to new test, stating the propensity to give false positives is a valid reason to discontinue it.

Edwards then asked Gorajec about the current protocol used for testing a horse.  Specifically, he inquired about the timeframe of drawing a sample with respect to exercise and other environmental conditions.  Gorajec did not outline the specific protocol utilized, but indicated he has no reason to believe the proper method is not being followed.
 
Dwayne Rhule spoke in support of the EPO antibody testing currently in place.  Rhule said he feels the rules in place do work.  Further, he revisited a well-known instance of a trainer on the way to Hoosier Park to race who turned the trailer around and headed back to Chicago after the EPO testing was announced.  Rhule said he feels the biggest issue is the possibility of false positives.  In his quest for information, Rhule contacted Dr. Waterman, who told him the false positives cannot be replicated.  This finding would indicate the potential for false positives is much lower.  To conclude his comments, Rhule said he feels the IHRC should not repeal the set of rules currently in place until it is proven that out-of-competition testing is effective.

Chairman McNaught referred to a letter from Dr. Waterman.  She read, “Because this test was the only available method for several years to help control the use of these prohibited and dangerous drugs, the shortcomings of the ELISA were deemed to be acceptable by a number of states.”  The point conveyed is there is now better testing available to be utilized.  Armstrong said the information within Waterman’s letter actually puts the commission on the horsemen’s side.  He said the better testing available now allows the creation of a more level playing field.  Finally, a motion was made to repeal the current EPO testing rules.  It passed unanimously.

The next item before the commission was the approval of Indiana Downs’ Standardbred racing officials.  Gorajec noted the officials named by the track are well-known to the commission and have been approved in the past.  Those listed were approved by a unanimous vote of the commission.

The final item on the agenda was the approval of Hoosier Park’s Thoroughbred/Quarter Horse racing officials.  As with those for Indiana Downs, the individuals listed had previously been approved by the commission.  As a result, they were unanimously approved again for 2007.

With no old business facing the commission, Chairman McNaught moved on to new business.  Gorajec suggested the need to modify the timelines previously given to the breed advisory committees.  Originally, they had been given a deadline for their 2008 proposal, as well as one for any future structural changes to the programs.  When those date recommendations were made and accepted by the commission, Gorajec said he was hopeful the two tracks would be further along in formulating their projections for slot revenue.  However, this has become a more difficult task than originally predicted and is taking longer than expected.  Gorajec suggested reverting to the old date of finalizing the program by the first of the year.  This would change the date from October 1, 2007 to January 1, 2008.  Chairman McNaught made a motion to modify the date.  It received unanimous support from the other members of the commission.

Chairman McNaught reminded those present of the dates scheduled for upcoming meetings.  Currently, there are meetings set for September 27 (at Indiana Downs) and November 15 (at Hoosier Park).  She noted additional meetings may be held in August and October, depending on the progress of the slot facilities at the tracks.  If scheduled, notification of such meetings will be made as soon as possible.

 With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.  The next meeting will be Thursday, September 27, 2007 at Indiana Downs.  This meeting will include discussion of anabolic steroids.