Indiana Horse Racing Commission Meeting Notes

Date: March 16, 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 Friday, March 16, 2007, at the Indiana State Library.  The agenda was lengthy, with many rule changes to be considered.  Chairman Sarah McNaught called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.  While taking full responsibility for selecting the date for this meeting, Chairman McNaught apologized to those in attendance for the hassles created from the parade and downtown run in honor of St. Patrick’s Day.  Assuming these events would be conducted on Saturday, she had not anticipated the congestion for those wishing to attend the meeting.  She noted there would likely be late arrivals to the meeting, as some had called to notify the commission of the traffic issues. 

Minutes from the February 27, 2007 meeting were approved by the Commissioners.  The meeting then progressed to the other items included on the agenda.  Since many items on the agenda would invite public comment, Chairman McNaught explained the protocol to be used by those addressing the commission.  If speaking, a person was to give their full name, spelling it if necessary.  In addition, if the speaker represented a group, the name of the group should be stated.  Instructions were given to keep comments concise and to the point.  If comments are simply a duplicate of those previously stated, the speaker should reference the prior comments and state agreement with those.

The first item on the agenda was consideration of the Commission Staff report entitled – Integrity ’06: 2006 Review and 2007 Recommendations.  Chairman McNaught explained the commission would be considering parts a. Additional Track Security, b. Veterinarian Practices Initiatives, and c. Integrity Hotline Posters as a package.  She then asked those with specific issues to come forward to share their concerns.

The first person to address the commission was Dr. Keith Hollendonner, DVM.  Dr. Hollendonner was representing the track veterinarians, which would be impacted by the proposed rule changes.  To begin his comments, he stated a concern of what the commission hoped to accomplish with these rules.  He went on to say he was unaware of any practicing veterinarians with a history of issues which would necessitate promulgating such rules.  In addition, he stated the problems with positive tests last year were the actually problems with trainers.  Basically, the involved trainers admitted their own practices, not those of a veterinarian, resulted in the positive tests.  Hollendonner’s comments concluded by stating the veterinarians feel the rules being considered are borderline oppressive.  They believe Indiana has some of strictest rules in the industry and they are sufficient.

Chairman McNaught then asked Joe Gorajec, IHRC Executive Director, to go over each item to help clarify and explain the rules proposed.  Gorajec stated there are 4 rules listed, but the commission is actually dealing with 2 issues.

The first issue is records of treatment by veterinarians.  Gorajec explained there are horses competing in Indiana racing which are stabled both on and off of the grounds of the two racetracks.  Some off track locations are very remote, possibly even in other states.  However, there are a number of training centers within a short distance of the tracks.  There are licensed veterinarians practicing both at the tracks and the various training centers.  Currently, the IHRC requires licensed veterinarians to submit veterinary records for horses stabled on track upon request.  With the new rules, the commission would be allowed to receive similar information for those off track if there was an issue or the commission simply wants to review practices of veterinarians.

The second issue was referred to as other responsibilities.  Gorajec explained that these are basically responsibilities of trainers.  It means trainers cannot use services of veterinarians excluded from tracks or ineligible to be licensed.  The rule is an attempt to halt a situation where a suspended veterinarian may attempt to continue practicing by doing it off the grounds of the racetracks.  Gorajec paralleled the rule to that of governing suspended trainers.  The commission currently tracks trainers to ensure they are not participating in our program by being at a training center and using a person as a “front”.   Gorajec stated, “So, when it is a trainer, we take great measures to try to ensure they are not participating.  This rule is the equivalent for veterinarians.”  He went on to explain there are currently no issues of this type, but the goal is to keep it from occurring.

Jeff Edwards then addressed the commission.  Edwards stated he agrees with the comments made by Dr. Hollendonner as far as records of treatment.

 Commissioner Grimes asked if these records were to be furnished for every horse, every day.  Gorajec explained there was a compromise last year to allow the IHRC to get the information upon request.  He added that last year all veterinarians were very cooperative and even gave records for those off the grounds.  It was not required, but they did it as a courtesy to the commission.  Gorajec stated the rules would make it required for all veterinarians.  Moreover, Gorajec said he feels it is unfair to have one standard for those stabled on the grounds and another for those housed away from the tracks.

Grimes added that the purpose of the integrity program is to deal with deterrence.  If the goal is to deter bad behavior, it seems that these types of initiatives are where the commission needs to focus.  He felt there is a need to find a way to give meaning to a regimen of deterrence.  Grimes stated, “If we are serious about integrity, Indiana must take bold steps to move in that direction.”  To refute input from various parties, Grimes stated he believes veterinary initiatives should be strengthened, not struck from the program.  He would like to create a situation where only the veterinarians could possess medications, with the commission being able to determine the source of those drugs.  He would like to have one source where veterinarians go to get medications.  He believes the commission can help control suspension issues of trainers, transfer of owners, etc., if there is control over access to drugs.  “When a veterinarian purchases medications, perhaps there should be a preferred provider,” says Grimes.  He noted the commission should do whatever it takes to pursue the goal of integrity.  With that in mind, he does not consider the rules before the commission as bold at all, but a move forward.  Enforcing integrity requires taking such initiatives.  By adopting these initiatives, the betting public is made aware that the IHRC is doing what is needed to make a level playing field.  The ball is in the commission’s court to show how bold it needs to be.  To conclude his comments, Grimes shared his feeling that those in the industry are getting bogged down in details that distract from the heart of the issue.

Chairman McNaught built upon the ideas purported by Grimes, sharing the fact Indiana has been leading the way in integrity.  She feels the commission needs to constantly reevaluate what they are doing and look forward.  As part of a proactive stance, the IHRC uses many of the concepts from the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC) as a guide.  She considers the proposed rules as responsible, needed steps to further promote integrity.  There was then a motion to approve item 1 on the agenda, with the addition of instructing the IHRC Staff to work on ways to address Grimes’ concerns about the source of medications.  It was passed unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was consideration of emergency rules as recommended in the Commission Staff report entitled – 2007 Draft Rule Amendments and Other Issues.  This item actually included 37 separate rule changes.

Chairman McNaught suggested lumping items a. Effect of ruling – Trainers, b. Review of horse transfers, c. Review of trainer transfers, d. Owner – Positive Tests, e. Review of horse transfers, f. Review of trainer transfers, and g. Owner – Positive Tests together for discussion and input.

Gorajec explained the staff report and its contents.  He added that Indiana reviews license applications independently and decides eligibility for licensing for the state, regardless of whether an individual is licensed in other jurisdictions.  In fact, 63% of those refused a license in 2006 were racing elsewhere, indicating our standards are high.  Indiana takes the position of scrutinizing.  The idea is to create a situation to keep the undesirables from participating in the racing program.  Further, if a trainer is suspended, no transfer is approved to a spouse, employee, or household member of the suspended person.  The rule’s intent is to stop that practice from occurring.  The IHRC only approves transfer to an independent third party.  The person cannot be a part of suspended individual’s family or stable.  In some jurisdictions, it is a huge joke that suspended trainers can continue to race.  The “transfers” create a situation where a suspended trainer can still have access to the horses in the stable.  A related topic deals with requiring horses to be stabled on grounds in the case of a trainer transfer after a suspension is imposed.  The IHRC already has this option in place, so Gorajec does not really consider it a change from the existing practices.  Gorajec went on to point out, “The language says may, not shall.”  If the commission is comfortable with a transaction, the issue of stabling on the grounds of a racetrack may not be pressed.  For example, if the new trainer is stabled on track in Michigan, they would not be concerned the old trainer would be there. 

Gorajec further stated that owner changes have a bit of an overlap, in that some owners may not be approved to be licensed in Indiana.  He has concern over situations when an owner appears to be a magnet for positive tests.  There has been some discussion to suspend the owner.  The way this is written is to allow the commission to check the background to see if an owner has a history of positive tests over the past 5 years.  If repetitive occurrences are found, an owner’s horses could be required to be stabled on the grounds where they would be subject to the heightened security of the tracks.

The floor was then made open for anyone wishing to offer comments about these rules.  Duane Swingley with the Indiana Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association (ITOBA) addressed the commission.  Swingley explained the fact some trainers have large stables of horses with trainers under them responsible for certain group of horses, often at different locations.  The rules proposed could potentially destroy a large trainer.  By the time 6 months passes, he/she could be out of the business.  The owners would likely be gone and the trainer might not be able to get back into the game.  He also shared his thoughts that owners should not be penalized by actions of a trainer just because they have horses with him/her.  He feels creating a situation of making the big guy fall, is asking people to try to sabotage others.  For example, someone could place a prohibited substance in a horse’s feed.  The result would be a positive test and a suspension of the trainer responsible for the horse.

Gorajec explained that Swingley’s example seems to be implying an automatic suspension.  Since the rule says may, there is a way to take into account special circumstances.  He also added Indiana is careful to delineate between serious positives and non-serious positives, as well as whether it was intentional.  In some cases, the penalty scheme is less because special situations are taken into consideration.

Jim Noel with the Indiana Quarter Horse Racing Association (IQHRA) expressed concern over transferring trainers for suspensions of 15-30 days.  He feels it is hard on the horse, as the horse’s routine is altered for what will likely be only a brief period of time.  He also believes it makes a hardship on the owner.  To explain this, he stated, “We need owners and this is not the way to get them.”  There needs to be a way the horses can be transferred and keep the horses running.

Commissioner Armstrong asked if there is a way around the language to make provisions for short suspensions resulting from violations that did not give a horse an advantage in a race.  Gorajec responded by saying it could be written to address the severity of a violation or the length of a suspension.  As far as severity, it could not really be limited to a Class I or Class II violation because there are purposeful positive tests too.  These would be high TCO2 tests or foreign substances administered within 24 hours of a race.  Moreover, if an exception was made, it would be based on the length of suspension and not the type of violation.  After some discussion, the commission agreed the benchmark should be suspensions of 15 days or less.  This means in all suspensions greater than 15 days, no horse may be transferred to a party associated with the suspended individual.  The appropriate language was inserted into the impacted rule and the group of rule changes was approved unanimously.

The next bundled rule changes to discuss were h. Licensing requirements for owners, i. Eligibility, j. Eligibility for racing and ownership status, k. Licensing requirements for owners, l. Eligibility, and m. Eligibility for racing and ownership status.

The IHRC attorney, Robin Babbitt, explained the definitions of ownership and undisclosed ownership.  He gave a brief history of problems with past issues of ownership involving races written as Indiana owned.  These problems are the basis of the rules to be considered.  The commission has a requirement to disclose ownership, but currently none to disclose trainer identity.  The proposed changes do couple things.  First, the identities of the owner(s) and trainer are required to be given to the commission.  Second, it puts the requirement of the disclosure right in the rules relating to both owners and trainers, so there is no confusion that it applies to both.  Babbitt also noted there is currently a requirement to put horse on the stewards’ list if there is a question involving the true trainer of a horse.

Swingley again addressed the commission. He shared his opinion that owners should not have to prove true ownership if the required documents of transfer are up to par.  He feels animals are personal property.  “We should be able to trade them, sell them, or do whatever we wish with them,” says Swingley.  He does not think owners should have to prove anything and the documents required by a breed’s overseeing group should suffice.
 
Attorney Babbitt explained ownerships are not impacted at all by these rule changes.  The items Swingley mentioned are not being changed.  The idea is to make the rules for disclosing ownership apply to trainers.  Such information should be much more discoverable and records of owners would be easier to produce, like checks written to a trainer, etc.  Babbitt felt Swingley was asking the commission to amend rules as currently written and that is not what is at hand.  Commissioner Grimes noted Swingley has never approached the IHRC staff with his concerns.  Babbitt referred back to the industry input received by the commission referencing the fact none of the items submitted mentioned issues with this particular rule.  Further, Babbitt stated the proposals before the commission for promulgating rules were provided in an organized manner.  He feels this approach was to address something that is not at hand and on the table for consideration today.

With no one else coming forward to offer input, there was a motion to adopt the rules, which passed unanimously.

The next item on the agenda was n. Effect of rulings.  With no questions or comments offered on this item, it was approved by the commission.

Items o. Initiation of proceedings and p. Administrative penalties were addressed together, as they were considered related.  Babbitt explained they are really housekeeping rules to clean up the language to reflect the current practices of the commission.  With no concerns about these rule changes offered, they were both approved by the commission.

Item q. Judge’s list was also approved, as there were no questions or comments in the written responses or from those attending the meeting.

Agenda items r. Protests, s. Order of finish for pari-mutuel wagering, t. Protests, u. Order of finish for pari-mutuel wager, and v. Appeals were grouped together, as they were considered to be dealing with the same subject.

Babbitt explained that these changes came up as a result of a situation that followed a recent edition of the Indiana Derby at Hoosier Park.  It arose when the stewards checked with the photo system to establish race results.  He noted Hoosier Park did an excellent job reviewing and deciding the result, prior to making it official as a dead heat.  Based on the size of the purse, a thorough examination was needed.  In this situation, the trainer of one of the horses was watching at an OTB facility where the picture had lost resolution to accurately see the finish picture.  It resulted in a protest of the judges’ decision.  The commission invited those entering the protest to meet with judges, track employees, etc. to review the documentation.  In meantime, there was a plethora of bad press about being cheated out of victory, accusations of altered photos, etc.  The purpose of the wording is to make it clear that the decision of the judges is final.  As Babbitt states, “You don’t control the process of deciding a race.”  In the race referenced, the purse money was tied up and unavailable to the owners until protest was withdrawn.  Babbitt felt all those involved in the situation did an excellent job going through the process.

Shirley Tresner (IQHRA) expressed concern in the event of an error being found on the time trials when a tape is reviewed.  She feels, with a reasonable situation, there should be a protest allowed.  To help establish a better understanding of her concerns, Gorajec asked whether her concern involves an issue with the order of finish or simply the time.  Tresner replied that it could actually be either.

Babbitt noted the commission has the power to waive a rule if it is obviously an error that needs to be fixed.  He gave the rule number where it is possible to challenge information provided as the result of a race.  Basically, the commission can waive the rules to allow errors to be fixed.  Tresner responded by saying if there is a clear path available to correct mistakes, it takes care of her concerns.

After establishing the commission was comfortable with the other rules, Gorajec agreed to work with the Quarter Horse association to tweak the rule and present it later to the commission, as an amendment.  All these rules passed unanimously.

Jessica Barnes, Director of Standardbred Racing – IHRC, presented item w. Indiana Sires Stakes and Genesis Series.  She explained there were modifications to Aged ISS in 2007 to have eliminations only if necessary to determine which horses go to the final.  If eliminations are contested, the horses must report to be tested for EPO.  If no eliminations are needed, no testing would be required.  Jeff Edwards expressed concern over the fact the final is an $80,000 race.  He would like to see testing in place, no matter what.  Gorajec clarified that making the changes to the race to have no legs meant the rules were not applicable.  It would be viewed as being no different than the Dan Patch Invitational or Hoosier Cup, where no pre-race EPO testing is required.  This rule change was also passed by the commission.

Tim Schmitz, the Presiding Judge for Standardbreds, stepped forward to address item x. Excusing claimed horse.  Schmitz explained types of races that can exist.  Among races available are claiming races where a price tag is placed on a horse.  He stated, “Sometimes they enter in the races to lose them.  Sometimes they enter because that is where they are competitive.  And sometimes they are entered and they don’t really want to lose them.”  The problem is some trainers are entering horses, scratching, going elsewhere to race and coming back to avoid requirement of entering back in same class of race at the same price.  The situation was brought to attention of the judges by the horsemen’s representative.  As written and approved by the commission, the rule requires a scratched horse to be entered at the same claiming price in the start immediately following a scratch.

Items y & z on the agenda both deal with Coupled entries.  Chairman McNaught noted no concerns with these rules were included in the written materials submitted to the commission.  At the time allotted for public comment, Shirley Tresner took the opportunity to address the commission.  She noted Quarter Horses have a smaller pool of owners.  She expressed concern as to why the commission is writing a rule to leave control of coupling or uncoupling entries up to the stewards or track, instead of simply making a rule for deciding.  Gorajec replied that the exceptions made for Quarter Horses are consistent with what Quarter Horse representative have wanted in the past.  He added controlling of coupling/uncoupling of entries is not what the commission is trying to do with the rule.

Larry Smallwood with IHBPA stated he is for owner coupling, but not coupling trainers.  He feels it helps the betting pools.

Jim Noel added that uncoupling entries appears to be what is best for Quarter Horses.  As with Tresner, he had concerns with the wording stating shall or may, instead of simply outlining the procedure to use.  Gorajec addressed the concerns by using an example.  He said when the weak half of entry wins, there is a perceived idea of shenanigans being played with pools.  That is why the commission would want to leave it up to the tracks or stewards, implying they have a better handle on the ability of the horses and know what is needed to generate the best handle.  The idea is to keep integrity, but also to keep the image clean to the betting public.  This rule allows tracks to create races with various exotic wagers and gimmicks to meet their needs.

After a brief discussion about the entries of the Kentucky Derby typically racing as uncoupled on all entries, the rule change was passed by the commission.

Item aa. Safety helmets was initially skipped, as it was moved to a separate issue on the agenda.

The next grouping of rules was bb. General provisions, cc. Eligibility to appear and scope of practice, dd. Suspension and revocation of ability to practice before Commission, ee. Reinstatement, ff. Effect of representation; service, gg. Obligations of truthfulness and due diligence, hh. Knowledge of client’s omission, and ii. Certification of documents.
 
Babbitt noted these particular rules have apparently struck a nerve with some in the industry.  They were actually drafted as a result of the commission's wishes to conform to the language of similar rules of the Indiana Gaming Commission.  He explained there has been a situation of an individual who was not in good standing with the Bar, yet represented a person in a hearing.  There was another lawyer from New Jersey who did not have familiarity with Indiana laws.  Babbitt stated, “All we are asking to do is allow the commission to have same standards as those used by the gaming commission when imposing rules and regulations regarding legal counsel.”  For the most part, the rules listed are those in place and used by the gaming commission for about 10 years.  If the IHRC is not able to determine if a lawyer is in good standing, they have the option to decide if they are able to represent the party.

Swingley addressed the commission, sharing his concern that the commission can refuse a lawyer for any reason.  Babbitt and Grimes responded by stating that is not an accurate description of the rule.  Attorney Robert Hagemier, who has worked with the commission throughout the process of the sale of Hoosier Park, offered input.  He used his past experiences in dealing with racing jurisdictions and their unique realm to support the rule.  He believes having such rules is a good roadmap to make sure potential counsel is familiar with the rules so they cannot claim they didn’t know at some point in the hearings.

A motion was made to adopt these rule changes, which passed unanimously.

When item jj. Pools dependent on betting interests was up for discussion, both Rick Moore (Hoosier Park) and Jon Schuster (Indiana Downs) addressed the commission.  They expressed thanks to Gorajec for proposing the rule.  After being put to a vote, it was passed by the commission.

Item kk. Pari-mutuel ticket sales met the same support.  Schuster again approached the podium.  He stated he had no opposition or concern, but wanted to compliment the IHRC staff on their process for taking care of lost tickets.  This rule was approved by the commission.

Before moving on to the remaining items on the agenda, Gorajec asked the commission to refer to pages 6 & 7 of the draft of rule amendments.  These were not presented as proposed rules because there is really no change to the existing rules.  He is proposing blood gas testing for Thoroughbreds be reduced to 2 days per week, focusing on longer distance races.  In addition, he would like to eliminate it in Quarter Horses.  If the commission is agreeable to changes, Gorajec would like to have a motion to support it.  Grimes was hesitant to support such a change because he feels it is a step back to not do testing each day.  Gorajec stated it would cut costs.  Furthermore, he does not think the practice of milkshaking is as prevalent in Thoroughbred racing.  Commissioner Armstrong offered his input, stating he does not feel the rules should be changed in case they discover a need to do more testing.  Gorajec explained no decision about this was being made today, he simply wanted to point out there are things the commission is reviewing that might be coming down the pike.  Many potential issues deal with the work of the RMTC.  Further information will be forthcoming.

The next item on the agenda was Consideration of emergency rules as listed in the document entitled Supplemental Staff Recommendations.

Parts a. and b. of this issue deal with the “In today” program.  Gorajec explained the industry groups had asked for a 2 hour change in the report time for identifying horses at the track as being “In today”.  As a compromise, the rule was written to have a 1 hour change.  All horses residing in stables housed on the grounds must now be in their assigned stall by 8:00 a.m., with check-in by security personnel to be completed by 10:00 a.m.  This rule change was passed unanimously by the commission.

Parts c. and d. of the supplement address the possibility of foreign substances allowed.  These rules propose allowing veterinary administration of Vitamin B1 and Calcium on race day.  Gorajec feels this is possible because of the portion of the Integrity program involving escort of veterinarians.  With this in place, there is a presumed comfort level to think there is no downside to the use of these substances.  The potential upside is using the substances as a calming agent for nervous in horses.  In written documentation, Dr. Waterman (RMTC) added another positive to allowing this administration.  By nature, Salix voids a lot of electrolytes.  Calcium is an electrolyte, so it helps replace those lost in the urine.

There were no written comments concerning administering these substances.  However, Steve Stults (HBPA) did offer some comments when the floor was available.  He noted this rule is a positive impact on racing in Indiana and appreciates the work of the commission to address this need in the industry.  Jim Noel (IQHRA) echoed those thoughts and added he feels such a practice does help some horses.  Gorajec responded saying he was happy to be able to work with an idea presented to the commission.  He said he receives an array of requests.  Some ideas are good ideas and workable, while others are good ideas but not workable.  There are also some received that are a definite “No” because they are so far out in left field.  This rule change was approved by the commission.

The next item on the agenda was consideration of an emergency rule amendment for safety helmets.  Gorajec opened the discussion saying last year the commission learned the rules in existence had a standard about safety helmets which was not being enforced.  The standard for helmet safety is established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).  In 2006, the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority made a rule that all jockeys in a race must use helmets up to the ASTM standards.  In reviewing what has been used, they found most helmets were older styles and not as safe.  Gorajec wants the jockeys participating in Indiana to get rid of those helmets and adopt a list offering a choice of a few helmets that meet the standards of ASTM.  As a result, he worked with Jockey Guild to find helmets to offer some options.

Jeff Johnson, regional manager of the Jockey’s Guild, assisted with the research.  He expressed appreciation of being asked for input.  Johnson explained the process of finding helmets that meet the standards and are also readily available in the United States.  He noted that if you asked jockeys, they do not like the available helmet and would rather use the older models.  Other countries are way ahead of the US in testing.  They have conducted more extensive testing to find the best helmet available.

Chairman McNaught asked some crucial questions with respect to the helmets.  As a practical matter, she inquired as to how we would determine if a helmet meets standards.  Gorajec responded that they are clearly marked if approved.

She also asked who is responsible for checking the helmets.  Gorajec explained it is not currently in rules.  However, there are racing officials in the jockey’s quarters who would have the burden of monitoring this.  No additional personnel would be needed.

Jockey Carter Riley spoke on the subject of helmets.  He stated he has one of the older model helmets that he has used for years.  He has had horses break legs, etc. and the helmet has held up.  Of the helmets presented as options, he likes the Japanese helmet because of its size.  He also has a concern about difference in size for helmet covers and the cost ($400-800 dollars for a British helmet).

To clarify this rule for those in attendance, Gorajec explained the rule currently being considered applies only to jockeys in races.  However, it is likely to be expanded later to include others involved in racing like exercise riders, pony horses, etc.  When asked if it would be possible to simply allow jockeys to make the choice to use an ASTM approved helmet, Gorajec replied, “If we don’t require it, the change will not happen."

Commissioner Schaefer stated the timing of this rule change may present a hardship on the jockeys, with the meet starting next month.  Gorajec explained that he and the Jockey Guild representative have already discussed a way to get the word out about the new regulation to all jockeys and agents licensed in Indiana.  Plans include offering a list of possible vendors to supply helmets.  It may even be possible to have suppliers on site opening night to make them available.

Grimes added he is worried about potential liability of requiring a specific item to be used. Forcing them to wear something they do not feel makes their job safer may create other issues.  When put to a vote, the rule passed 4-1, with Grimes voting “No”.

Moving along the established agenda, the next item was consideration of a proposal regarding Salix administration in Standardbreds.  Jeff Edwards addressed the commission to explain the reason for the proposal. Edwards gave a brief historical account of the prior year’s increase in the amount of Salix allowed to be administered to horses racing.  With the additional Salix, there was an associated price increase.  Originally, the cost was supposed to be $25, with the administering veterinarian to be required to stay on the grounds until the last race on the card was completed.  The veterinarians agreed to reduce the cost to $20, if they did not have to stay until the conclusion of the races.  Edwards noted concern about the increased cost by some in the industry.  As a solution to the cost issue, Edwards approached Dr. Keri Peterson, DVM about administering Salix at the price of $15 per dose and staying throughout the evening.  Peterson also spoke at the meeting, stating the proposal would benefit both the horsemen and the commission.  It keeps the cost down, yet makes a veterinarian available throughout the race card.

Keith Hollendonner again spoke, representing all of the veterinarians administering Salix in the current rotation system.  He said they do not endorse proposal at all, believing it is potentially dangerous to the horses and unfair to both the horsemen and practicing veterinarians.  Furthermore, he feels Dr. Peterson does not have the experience to do the task at hand, stating the current veterinarians administering Salix have over 50 years of experience collectively.  Her lack of experience presented a concern with administering Salix in a consistently safe manner.  Hollendonner stated, “Allowing only experienced veterinarians to administer Salix would, in our opinion, demonstrate that this commission is genuinely concerned about the health of the horses and their human handlers.”  In addition, Hollendonner reminded the commission of Gorajec’s policy (which is supported by the IHRC’s Chief Commission Veterinarian, Dr. Jedra) of not allowing new veterinarians to give Salix until practicing on the racetrack for at least one year.  In the past, both he and Dr. Jerrilee Cave had hired associates in their practices.  Neither was allowed to administer Salix until they had met that requirement.  There had, in the past, been a veterinarian who wanted to give Salix and not practice on the backside at the racetracks.  The request was denied when it was made.

Currently, the IHRC employs a protocol using 3 veterinarians responsible for administering Salix on a rotation system, splitting racing days equally.  Hollendonner added, “To our knowledge, there has never been a failure on the veterinarian’s part to administer Standardbred Salix on time.”  He stated the veterinarians do not believe there is a need to change a system that has worked well since the inception of racing in Indiana.  “By limiting Salix administration to just one veterinarian, it would eliminate any flexibility regarding scheduling and could jeopardize the system as a whole,” he continued.

Hollendonner acknowledged that the reason for the proposal is cost.  With the increased dosage available, horses can get twice as much Salix for only $5 more.  With respect to the cost, Hollendonner added, “We agree Salix is a profitable endeavor, yet we reject the notion that $20 Salix is unreasonable.  In fact, many other racing jurisdictions charge considerably more.  Ontario, for example, is $45.”  He also stated Dr. Peterson may have a perceived conflict of interest, as she is marred to Mike Peterson, a Standardbred driver.

Continuing with his comments, Hollendonner gave a brief history of the events which lead to the current price of $20.  He also addressed the horsemen’s need to have a veterinarian available during the races by saying, “If the horsemen truly need a veterinary practitioner present during the races, we would be more than willing to discuss such a request.”  Finally, he reminded the commission that the potential to earn money for administering Salix has always been presented as a reward for those practicing on the grounds of the racetracks.  He closed his comments by stating the veterinarians feel the current system should continue and be unchanged.

The IHRC's Chief Veterinarian, Ursala Jedra, also spoke to the commission.  She confirmed it is true the original cost was set at $25.  The horsemen’s organization agreed to drop the requirement of the veterinarian to stay on the grounds until the conclusion of the race card, if the cost could be reduced to $20.  That is how the current price was established.  Additionally, she agrees experience is needed to perform the task.  Right now, the IHRC has dependable and experienced veterinarians responsible for administering Salix.  With 3 employed, it is possible to get a substitute if one gets hurt.  In her opinion, the $5 savings is not worth a person or horse’s life.

At this point Chairman McNaught referred to Robin Babbitt for appropriate wording.  Babbitt responded that if there is no change, no action is needed by commission.  The issue is whether commission sees the need to make a change.  Upon being put to a vote, the proposal was denied.  The administration of Salix will remain as it has been in the past and the cost will be $20.

Before moving on to the remaining items on the agenda, Commissioner Jim Lauck offered some general comments.  He stated he does not like seeing accusations made.  He feels nothing good comes out of those and it only serves to damage the reputations of all of us in the industry.

Returning to the agenda, the next item was approval of the racing officials for the upcoming Thoroughbred/Quarter Horse meet at Indiana Downs.  The racing officials were approved unanimously by the commission.

The final item on the agenda was the announcement of future Commission meeting dates for 2007.  Although no meeting times were given, the following dates and locations were shared:

- Tuesday, May 22 at Indiana Downs
- Wednesday, July 18 at Hoosier Park
- Thursday, September 27 at Indiana Downs

With no further Old Business pending, the commission asked for any New Business to consider.  Two individuals used this opportunity to address the commission.

First, Jon Schuster with Indiana Downs spoke.  He wanted to go on record as stating concerns about the liability of the tracks with respect to the helmet requirements approved by the commission.

Steve Stults, Executive Director of the Indiana HBPA, the organization recognized by the commission as the representative for the Thoroughbred horsemen in Indiana then read from a prepared statement.  He said, “It is our feeling that a regulatory body is necessary to protect the integrity of the industry and to promote the future of horseracing in Indiana.  We would like to express our support for Mr. Gorajec and this commission in their efforts to ensure that Indiana horsemen are able to compete on a level playing field.  We recognize that all rules and regulations initiated by the commission through the Integrity ’06 and now ’07 are not always presented exactly as some horsemen would hope, but we do feel that the tone and intent of these initiatives are targeted toward the improvement and protection of racing in Indiana.  That being said, we would like to express our appreciation of Mr. Gorajec and the commission for their willingness to listen to our concerns and to take an active and usually pro-active part in the dialogue that has occurred recently between the HBPA and Mr. Gorajec.  Evidence of this attitude is present in several changes in ’06 rulings for ’07 and the willingness to revisit and explore other proposed issues in the future as outcomes of pending cases are determined and evidence of reliable research is presented.  Let’s strive to keep lines of communication open and to continue in a professional and productive manner.”

With no further New Business to consider, the meeting was adjourned.

As mentioned above, the next meeting date was set for Tuesday, May 22, 2007.