Indiana Horse Racing Commission Meeting Notes

Date: September 27, 2007

Please note: These are NOT official minutes of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission meeting.  They are notes developed by our representative attending the meeting.

The Indiana Horse Racing Commission met on Thursday, September 27, 2007.  The meeting was held at Indiana Downs.  IHRC Chairman Sarah McNaught called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m., welcoming everyone and asking all those in attendance to turn off any electronic devices which may interfere with the meeting proceedings.  She also thanked Indiana Downs for hosting the event.

The first item of business on the full agenda was approval of the minutes of the last meeting, held August 21, 2007.  These were approved unanimously, as written.

Continuing with the agenda, the meeting progressed to the presentation from Scot Waterman DVM, Executive Director of the Racing Medication & Testing Consortium (RMTC).

Waterman began his presentation by thanking the IHRC for inviting him to speak.  He then gave a brief history of the RMTC, including their mission and an overview of past and current activities.  He noted the original founders of the group continue to work on their cause, expanding their base to include additional groups which support their work.  All three racing breeds are represented and part of the group.  He talked about the members of the RMTC board and their diversity, stating they are “committed to uniformity.”  To accomplish their work, the RMTC tries to get experts to give recommendations to committees assigned to working on various projects.  The committees then go to full RMTC board for approval.  This method has allowed them to tackle some difficult subjects.

Waterman also shared the RMTC Mission Statement: “The mission of the consortium shall be to develop, promote, and coordinate, at the national level, policies, research, and educational programs which seek to ensure the fairness and integrity of racing and the health and welfare of racehorses and participants, and protect the interests of the betting public.”  The RMTC focuses on model rules, research, and security to accomplish their mission.

When providing some background of the RMTC, Waterman shared some of their past accomplishments.  He used an example involving Furosemide (Lasix or Salix) and explained that the RMTC works in phases.  Their final goal is to produce uniform medication guidelines.

Waterman shared some insight into projects addressed by the RMTC.  The group seeks to find ways to detect illegal medications and better utilize therapeutic medications.  As a part of their work, the RMTC wants to be able to differentiate between environmental contamination and medications given on purpose to enhance performance.

Backstretch security is a big part of making all of it work.  Of great importance is the Big Event Team (BET).  This team is present at major industry events to ensure the integrity of racing.  The RMTC is currently working on a security personnel training manual, to further enhance backstretch security.  The RMTC also wants to work on finding drug suppliers and halt the influx of medications.  In future, the RMTC also wants to look at laboratory operations and strive for better testing.

As he ended his opening comments, Waterman asked if there were any questions about the information he had shared.  After consulting the commission members, as well as the audience, Chairman McNaught indicated there were no questions yet.

The next item on the agenda was consideration of emergency rules regarding anabolic steroids.  To work through this topic, the commission decided to utilize an outlined format, complete with time constraints for speakers.  The format allowed presentations from several veterinarians and other industry stakeholders.  Chairman McNaught noted the schedule was an attempt to make the opportunity for input as fair and equitable as possible, yet not too long.

Joe Gorajec, IHRC Executive Director, introduced the topic of anabolic steroids.  Attempting to keep his opening comments short, he stated, “The commission has before them the model rule from the association of Racing Commissioners International (RCI).”  The rule was taken up by the RCI at their annual meeting in April 2007 in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where it was passed unanimously when up for consideration.  Since then, the rule has gone to all racing commissions in North America for their study and consideration.

Chairman McNaught then invited Steve Stults (HBPA) to the podium.  He was representing the Indiana Horsemen’s Coalition, which is comprised of Indiana’s three racing breeds of horses.  Stults introduced the group’s three speakers (Mr. Kent Stirling – National HBPA & RMTC, Dr. Stephen Barker – Louisiana State University, and Dr. Thomas Tobin – Gluck Equine Center, University of Kentucky), who would be reporting on current trends and the latest information available to the industry.  Stults said he hoped the information provided by these individuals would help the commission in making the decision before them.

The first speaker to address the commission was Stirling.  To open his comments, he stated he is the Chairman of the National HBPA Medication Committee and a member of the board of the RMTC.  Further, he stated he has trained and worked with Thoroughbreds all of his life.  He noted the rule before the commission is what was originally presented by the RMTC.  However, he cautioned, no withdrawal times for use in conjunction with the rule were decided.  He said there was never complete agreement on exact withdrawal times to be recommended.  With this in mind, he shared the fact he was not comfortable with this and not sure how the thresholds included in the rule were decided.  Stirling said he does not understand how there can be such a variation in withdrawal times for various anabolic steroids, when they are included in the same rule.  Also, he noted some horses naturally produce these substances, making their levels higher by default.

Stirling added he does feel anabolic steroids need to be regulated.  Moreover, he said they should not be over-regulated.  He said any rule regarding their use should be adopted uniformly throughout the industry.  Stirling said he thinks Indiana could be shooting itself in the foot if other states do not adopt the rule.  Complementing the group, he said the RMTC moves slowly because they turn every stone to get answers.  Their work strives to achieve no errors, like he feels could be in the current Indiana anabolic steroid rule.

Barker was the next speaker to address the group.  He gave a little information about his background and work at Louisiana State University (LSU).  Barker shared the fact he has done some anabolic steroid testing for humans, which makes his perspective unique.  Giving an overview of his research, he said he is always working toward uniform testing and categories.  Barker stated anabolic steroids were originally considered Category 4 drugs, as were substances like aspirin.  As such medications, there is a need to establish rational thresholds for use, with none being given within 24 hours of competition.  When deciding such thresholds, it is important to factor in things which are out of the trainer’s control.  Barker noted he was happy to see many of these outside factors are included in the RMTC model rule.

He noted the RMTC generally leans toward scientific basis for their rules.  However, he said he does not see that in this case.  The scientific data behind the rules for anabolic steroids have not been shared with those who must live with the guidelines recommended.  Barker said he believes review of the scientific literature for anabolic steroids is warranted before a final rule is established.  Further, he said he agrees with the proposition that, “heat and light have gotten in the way of fact and reason.”  Believing the media frenzy of human athletes using anabolic steroids has resulted in a push toward the issue in horse racing, Barker said he feels it is premature to adopt such a rule at this time.

Highlighting a key difference in species, Barker said horses do not get the huge increase in strength often seen in humans using anabolic steroids.  In addition, he stated 70% of horses racing are castrated, making the use of the substances a form of hormone replacement for the equine athletes.  Castrated humans are rare, so they really cannot be compared.  Furthermore, the use of anabolic steroids has shown no improvement in a horse’s performance.

Barker said he feels adopting the current rule is an attempt to draw attention to the issue and “make a name” for the regulators in the State of Indiana.  Clarifying his stance, he said he believes the subject does need to be addressed, but scientific background is needed.

Giving examples of the variability of naturally occurring steroid levels, Barker said the age of the horse, stage in the heat cycle, type of steroid, and carrier of the drug (oil, etc.) can affect the amount found in a horse’s system.  He also shared the fact the studies listed for developing the rule were performed in Hong Kong, but no data about the type (age, sex, etc.) of horses has been revealed.  As an example, Barker said the use of pregnant mares and stallions to establish levels is not fair to the average horse.  He also provided factors possibly impacting levels, like dehydration, pH, exercise, etc.  He then said this is the reason the RMTC has utilized testing involving blood, not urine (which was in the rule before the commission).  Barker stated, “Simply put, urine samples have too much variability to be used for testing.”  He also noted some places have banned the use of anabolic steroids completely, since it is not possible to test for them after a certain period of time.  This is mainly in places where horses are used for meat.

When Barker stated the rule presented has a flaw because all horses have a small level in their system at all times, Commissioner Grimes asked if there is a newer version of the rule incorporating this fact.  Barker affirmed there is an updated version and offered provide a copy to the members of the IHRC.  Barker said the research used for writing the rule assumes the horse tested is an intact male.  No variation for geldings, mares, etc, is provided.  Additionally, he said the cost for doing the testing required for all types of horses would be huge.  Barker said his recommendation to the Louisiana Racing Commission is to adopt most rules.  However, with regard to an issue like anabolic steroids, he has cautioned them to go slowly.  He said he feels the problems possible from adopting such a rule could do more harm than good.  Concluding his comments, Barker stated, “It is premature to adopt such a rule.  We need data instead of anecdotal comments.”  He then offered his services to help the commission in making a decision, if they so desire.  His presentation was met with applause from the audience.

Tobin was the final speaker invited by the Indiana Horsemen’s Coalition.  He gave those at the meeting a brief overview of his education and role in the industry.  Paramount to his interest in the topic, he said he runs a research program in Kentucky on drugs in racehorses.  Attempting to establish credibility and establish a parallel, Tobin spoke about his work with Furosemide (Lasix or Salix) to establish testing thresholds.  He said the protocol included in his recommendation to the commission can be applied to other drugs.  In addition, Tobin shared a portion of his background which showed he is not simply a testing man, but knows how to strive to establish thresholds needed to arrive at a rule.

A major flaw Tobin finds in rule presented is it does not indicate the administration route of the anabolic steroids included.  He said it is very important to have a well-defined, quantitative, evaluative method available.  Further, he said he does not believe this is currently available for urine testing.  To get to that point, research would require using a large number of horses to get a good cross-section of results.  For a true statistical analysis, researchers need to be able to analyze the data for horses above and below average.  The high end is used to set the bar for being high.  With the number of horses racing in Indiana, there will be some horses naturally exceeding the levels.  Once such research is completed, it would then be possible to put rules in place to govern the drugs.

Tobin said his work with Furosemide was simple, compared with anabolic steroids because their formulas are more complex.  In addition, they are generally administered into the muscle in an oil-based carrier to prolong their presence in the body.  Moreover, it is not completely clear how it moves throughout the body as it is metabolized.  This makes the testing needing for research a lot more complex.  Another factor involves administering an oily substance and sending a horse out to exercise, as activity will change absorption in the body.  Comprehensive testing should include exercising horses to get complete data for establishing rules.

Not knowing the origin of the estimated withdrawal times, Tobin said he feels there is some uncertainty, which should be shared with the horsemen who would be abiding by the rule.  Tobin ended his comments by saying there is a need to do the necessary research and interpret the results generously.  Basic science gives an initial guideline, but regulatory experience is needed to get the variation possible from horse to horse.  He said he believes the results of complete anabolic steroid research will include the largest variation from horse to horse of any substances fully tested to date.  Tobin offered to answer any questions, as well as provide any data requested.  Tobin’s comments were also greeted with applause from the audience.

The next speakers to address the group were representing the RMTC.  These two gentlemen were Waterman and Dr. Rick Samms.

Waterman was the first of the two to speak.  He noted the RMTC has been discussing the issue of anabolic steroids for many years.  As a class, said Waterman, these are essentially unregulated in the United States.  In some other countries, they are regulated, sometimes even with out-of-competition testing to ensure they are not being used.  Originally, the RMTC decided not to move forward with rules regarding anabolic steroids because there were some instances of their use for “good reason”.  By not recommending rules, the RMTC knew there was a public perception of ignoring it within the industry.  Moreover, the RMTC has continued to monitor their use in the industry, finally deciding the use of anabolic steroids as a once in a while treatment is wrong.  As a way to determine the frequency of use, the RMTC used the veterinary records of stables and researched their use.  When doing this research the RMTC found anabolic steroids were regularly administered, often to all horses in a stable.

Waterman then summarized a study (in Pennsylvania) which indicated many horses in post race samples had as many as 6 different anabolic steroids present in their system.  The results of the study were clear indicators to the RMTC that the unregulated use of anabolic steroids is widespread.  In Waterman’s opinion, such frequent use suggests a performance enhancing motivation for administering the substances.

Another issue pushing the RMTC to act was an increase in the use of anabolic steroids in humans.  The use of such undetectable drugs in humans has given a black eye to sports.  Waterman mentioned the introduction of a bill in the United States legislature to prohibit horses from getting anabolic steroids.  He thinks this is an indicator racing jurisdictions need to work on regulating their use, before it becomes a federal government issue.

Waterman then shared some background about the RMTC’s process of drafting the rule they decided to recommend.  The group decided to come up with a model regulation, later placing thresholds on testing levels.  The rule was then forwarded to the RCI to be considered for inclusion in the model rules at their annual meeting, where it was approved.  Since then, there has been a move toward adopting the rule.  The majority of racing jurisdictions are looking at a January 2008 implementation.  Waterman said he believes widespread implementation will also force sale companies to comply, by testing horses being sold to ensure they do not exceed an acceptable level.  Waterman stated, “It is not a zero tolerance rule.  It is a move to halt the abuse of the drugs.”  In racing, steroids are pretty much gone because they are easy to detect.  Waterman ended his comments by saying it is important to address this issue or face the risk of losing credibility of the sport and/or federal government intervention.

Samms then offered his thoughts.  Giving some of his background, he explained he is now with the University of Florida.  While working in Ohio, Samms said he performed steroid testing on Ohio State University football players.  Since anabolic steroids are synthetic versions of testosterone, all produce a degree of androgenic effects.

In his experience, Samms found the use of anabolic steroids at therapeutic levels produced more of an effect in females and altered males.  Their use in racing is prohibited in many countries around the world.  In these places, methods to differentiate the substances given from those naturally occurring in the body have been used.  Samms said he feels the use of anabolic steroids at therapeutic levels is appropriate.  Horses with health issues, post surgeries, etc. are examples of such use.  Adverse effects in horses depend on the total dosage and the frequency of administration.  Behavior changes from administering anabolic steroids can include aggression, erections, and mounting of other horses.  In addition, long term use in colts and stallions may contribute to future breeding issues.  In females, they could result in uterine problems and possibly effect fetal development.

Samms then gave an overview of the thresholds recommended by the RMTC and talked about the types of horses included.  Each of them results in a withdrawal time of approximately 30 days.  Further, Samms talked about detection and examination procedures involved in testing.  He said they are very reliable and well-established.

As he ended his comments, Samms noted his main point.  With the exception of the 4 substances listed in the model rule: Stanozolol (Winstrol), Boldenone (Equipoise), Nandrolone, and Testosterone, ALL other anabolic steroids are never to be present in a horse’s system.

Chairman McNaught then asked if the commissioners had any questions for any of the speakers.  Grimes was the first to pose an inquiry.  He said, “In terms of withdrawal times for Boldenone…How long?”  Samms responded by saying it is approximately 30 days, but bigger doses would require a longer period of time.

Grimes then asked who determines if one of the drugs is to be given for therapeutic purposes.  Samms said the administering veterinarian would be responsible for making a recommendation for the administration.

Looking at the new document provided, which contained the most recent version of the RMTC’s recommendations, Armstrong said, “Which is the recommended guideline?”  Waterman answered his query by saying those recommendations are not in the RCI rule, because the latest information needs to go back to them.  He said, “The RMTC is always open to creating a better rule.”

Armstrong then noted there appears to be an issue of “stacking” substances, or administering more than one.  According to the information in the rule, he said it looks like it would be allowable.  Waterman admitted the issue has complicated the research.  Grimes then further delved into the idea by saying, “So, there is potential for problems with stacking.”  Waterman replied there is no way around it, because of intact males.

With all of the information provided in mind, Grimes asked Waterman for his recommendation on the issue.  Waterman stated the commission should get as close to the working document of the RMTC as possible when deciding upon the rule.

Commissioner Lauck then posed a question to Stirling.  He said, “You said not to over-regulate.  Do you think there is a way to have some regulation?”  Stirling clarified his earlier comment about regulation by stating he meant not to be in a rush to regulate.

Going back to the issue of horses being placed on anabolic steroids for therapeutic purposes, Armstrong asked for a clarification of who places horses on the list of horses receiving the substances.  Waterman said the RMTC recommends leaving it up to each state to decide who is responsible for such monitoring and reporting.  The practicing veterinarian in charge of the health of the animal would really be the one deciding if there is a therapeutic reason for using it.  He said it is really up to the state to decide who handles it.  In most places, it is typically the veterinarians, but is left up to each jurisdiction for a decision.

Armstrong then asked who would pay for any repeated testing of horses on the list of horses receiving the substances.  Waterman said this would be left up to the individual jurisdictions.  However, he said, he thinks the state is likely the one who should pick up the tab.

Noting most of the conversation has been geared toward performance enhancement, Armstrong inquired about the overall health of the horse.  Specifically, he asked if anabolic steroids would allow the racing of horses that may be unhealthy, tired, unfit, etc.  Waterman offered a reply, noting it was his personal opinion.  He said, “These allow horses to be on the track that are not suitable to be on the track at a certain time.  The overuse of the medications has contributed to the decline in the number of starts per horse.  Multiple administrations on a schedule can lead to undue stress on the muscular and skeletal system of the horse.”

Chairman McNaught then asked if any of the other speakers would like to comment on the overall health of the horse.  To help them formulate answers, she asked Armstrong to repeat his question.

Tobin’s answer was brief.  He said he cannot see logic in Waterman’s statement about a reduction in the number of starts.

Barker said the studies he has seen have been done in healthy animals, with no impact on their performance.  He said the literature provided is about the rehabilitation of horses and maintaining the health of horses.  Barker said he is suggesting the regulations before the commission are incomplete, describing them as a “work in progress”.  He said the RMTC cannot even provide a threshold for withdrawal.  In addition, he said he does not see what the studies in Europe have to do with regulation in the United States.  Finally, he said he feels the adopting of such a rule needs more supporting evidence.

Stirling then answered the question.  He said, “There are a lot of horses running that should not be running.  That is the hand the horsemen are dealt.”  Furthermore, he said he does not think the use of anabolic steroids has anything to do with less starts from horses.  Instead, he thinks the fact races are now longer distances (examples: Belmont & Preakness) and our desire to breed for speed are more to blame.  The combination results in more stress on horses and less durability.

Grimes then asked if the horsemen’s position is that they do not oppose limited regulation of anabolic steroids.  Stults responded by saying, “Absolutely not.  We would ask to protect the integrity of racing and consider the economic impact of horses and horse racing.  We are asking for further research before adopting any rules.”

Next, Grimes asked the RMTC representatives a question.  “With regard to the thresholds listed, do you feel the issue is adequately addressed,” he asked.  Waterman responded quickly, by saying, “Yes”.

The IHRC Attorney, Robin Babbitt, then asked about some specific wording in the rule.  He said there appeared to be a change in wording between the 2 versions provided.  The word “plasma” was not in the second version.  Waterman told him it was a typographical error and should be struck.

Chairman McNaught then announced there would be a short break.  When the meeting resumed, the floor would be open for public comment, with each speaker limited to 2 minutes.

Robin Surface, DVM, was the first spectator to address the commission.  She explained she is a veterinarian and believes the commission is missing an important safety issue.  Without the option of using anabolic steroids when needed, she said she thinks there will be more stallions racing, which is dangerous.  Stallion behavior has the potential to create problems.  Thus, she supports the use of steroids in some cases.  Grimes asked if she believes their use should be regulated.  Surface responded she would like to see it regulated to allow the racing of horses on a reasonable schedule.  To help clarify his understanding, Grimes asked her if her issues were mainly with the threshold levels.  She affirmed this was her concern, repeating she wants a workable withdrawal time to be utilized.

Herb Hoovler (ITOBA) made a few comments.  He asked the commission to take into consideration the rules (or lack thereof) in place in surrounding jurisdictions.  Hoovler said implementing the rule in Indiana will make it hard for others to come to Indiana, as well as take horses outside and be competitive.

A representative from the National HBPA promised to use his position to work with the Indiana commission and other jurisdictions to work toward a good, workable solution for the issue at hand.  He said short fields do not do anyone any good, indicating the need to remember the betting public.

Tobin then offered some additional thoughts.  He began by complimenting Surface for her comments, because they were based on her personal experience.  Tobin said the RMTC was indicating the withdrawal times are up to the individual states.  However, with other drugs like Bute, Banamine, and Ketofen, the withdrawal times are provided by the RMTC.  He noted this is a departure from their usual practice.

A female trainer then shared her concerns.  As a trainer, she tends to chose aggressive fillies.  Moreover, she asked if there would be a way to allow trainers to evaluate the natural levels of horse, since this type of horse may have inherently high levels.  She also pointed out there are times when young horses are given doses of anabolic steroids to get them to the track, when no injuries, etc. are involved.  She stated, “You need to do something for the horsemen.”

Another trainer expressed his fear that the rule could put some trainers out of business because they could not get some horses to train which may be racing on anabolic steroids in other jurisdictions.  In addition, he also has concerns over who pays for the testing of horses on a veterinarian’s list as having received anabolic steroids.

Leigh Nichol then posed a question to be answered by any of the speakers.  She said, “Can you accurately test the thresholds given, since they are listed for plasma (yet the rule calls for urine)?”  Waterman was the first to reply, stating, “We believe the thresholds are solid.”  As a part of his response, Barker cautioned that some labs are not capable of such testing.  He said, “There will likely be a move toward uniform testing down the road.  Until there are a sufficient number of labs, it is really not possible.”  Grimes then asked Barker if he believed the withdrawal times listed are reasonable.  Barker replied, “No.  We need more information to get better data…need to do the testing on horses in a race environment.”

Worrying about not being able to confidently claim horses from other jurisdictions, another trainer brought up a possible problem.  He said it would be possible to run out of horses for various classes at the track.

Tobin again addressed the commission.  He asked to see the documents of the testing.  Specifically, he wanted to see the sources, number of horses used, citations, etc.  Moreover, he said he thinks the commission should want to see this information as well, before making a decision.

With no additional individuals wishing to offer public comment, Chairman McNaught asked for a summary from the Indiana Horsemen’s Coalition.  This was provided by Tobin.

Tobin stated, “You are presented with urinary thresholds, not plasma (as was used in the research).  Without the supporting data and no withdrawal time guidelines, it is premature.  No one present has refuted these medications are therapeutic.  All RMTC guidelines have withdrawals.  Without these, the horsemen are at risk.”

For the summary from the RMTC, Waterman read from a trade journal article by Larry Soma.  The article discussed anabolic steroid use in the industry.  As far as the surrounding state issues, Waterman noted Iowa already has testing in place.  He said the state has plenty of horses and their horsemen do go to other states to compete.

Chairman McNaught then asked for the IHRC staff recommendation from Gorajec.  He began his response by saying, “There is always a difference of opinion on issues in racing, and really anywhere.”  When working on making a recommendation, Gorajec said he looked to the state statute, to see what the government has written.  He focused on the portions involving foreign substances and medications.  Specifically, he cited Sec. 2(a) of the state statute, which states: “Except as permitted by the rules of the commission, a horse participating in a race may not carry in its body any foreign substance”.  Section b, which deals with the commission’s duty to adopt rules necessary to achieve the goal of Section a, talks about considering the model rules from the RCI.

To show a history of working within legislative guidelines, Gorajec stated the RMTC was involved in getting the approval of the use of drugs besides Bute and Lasix.  In fact, Waterman testified before the legislature to get this changed.

Gorajec continued, “When you look at the statute, it is very clear it does not allow for any drugs, except the 4 permitted (Bute, Banamine, Ketofen, and Lasix).”  In his opinion, Gorajec said the commission has a few options available.  Among these options was an ultra-conservative approach, would be to abide by the letter to the statute, meaning no steroids ever.  On the other hand, an ultra-permissive approach would mean the use of anabolic steroids is okay.  In this case, there would be no guidance and no guidelines.  The substance could be administered as often as desired, multiple times, and possibly stacked.

Finally, Gorajec said his recommendation is support of the model rule from the RCI, which was approved unanimously by the industry stakeholders at their meeting.  Believing other racing jurisdictions will honor their verbal commitment from the meeting, Gorajec said he feels more states will move toward adopting the rule.

When getting into the finer details, Gorajec said the rule could be implemented to take into account any changes coming to the rule from the RMTC.  He also noted the withdrawal times are not part of the rule; they are merely recommendations for the industry.  He suggested adopting the rule without the withdrawal times, but making those available to all interested parties.

As far as a timeline, Gorajec suggested looking at an effective date of January 1, 2008, an implementation date of April 1, 2008, and a third date of 45 days, which is considered a “grace period”.  Such a schedule means other jurisdictions would have an opportunity to get their rules in place.

Gorajec then gave more details about the 45 day grace period.  This would be at the beginning of any race meet.  During this time, there would be no punishments issued, but results would be communicated to any trainers involved with horses testing at high levels.  The grace period would allow accomplishment of 3 things:

1. Strive to communicate rules to the horsemen and check their horses for high levels.
2. Assist the laboratory in developing proficiency in analyzing urine samples for testing for drugs.
3. Provide a cushion in time for surrounding states to act.

 Armstrong then asked if the staff recommendation was adjusted to the latest version of the RMTC rule.  Gorajec responded by saying his recommendation was for the rule presented in the packet to be approved (older version), but incorporate any changes in the newer versions.

Lauck asked if any states have turned down the rule and/or tabled it.  Gorajec informed him none had done that, as Indiana was the first state to move toward voting on the model rule.  However, he said he knows both Kentucky and Ohio are moving toward adopting it.

With respect to the 45 day grace period, Lauck asked Gorajec if it was being suggested because of the potential volatility of the subject.  Gorajec noted it is more because of the need to keep in mind what is happening in other racing jurisdictions.

Chairman McNaught then opted to make a motion concerning the rule.  She moved to approve the rule, as presented, with an effective date of January 1, 2008 and implementation date of April 1, 2008, as well as incorporate the 45 day grace period for voluntary compliance.  In addition, she asked to have industry stakeholders work with their associations to work with the RMTC.  The IHRC Executive Director would also move in an expedited manner to bring any changes to the rule to the commission.  He would also work with the various associations within the state and other racing jurisdictions to refine the rules.

Lauck then asked the Chairman a question.  He wanted to know if sources other than the RMTC can be consulted.  Chairman McNaught replied that was her intent.

Grimes then asked for a clarification of exactly which version of the rule was being approved.  Armstrong said he recommended a hybrid of the two on the issue of stacking.  Babbitt was consulted for the appropriate changes to the wording for the rule.  He suggested modifying the wording of Section c to say the presence of more than one of the four approved anabolic steroids at concentrations higher than listed above.  In addition, he called for a second change, which was to strike the word plasma.

Babbitt then asked for all documents presented at the meeting to be made part of the record.  Chairman McNaught moved to make them part of the record.  When put to a vote, her full motion (which included the changes and additions mentioned) passed unanimously.

Once the rule had been passed, Armstrong took the opportunity to share some thoughts.  First, he said he recognized the therapeutic need for anabolic steroids.  He gave an example of his granddaughter using steroids for respiratory issues, but noted she is not competing anywhere.  If she did choose to compete, she would have to stop using the drugs.

Secondly, Armstrong said he was not taken by the comments involving horses without anabolic steroids not being competitive elsewhere.  In his opinion, such logic means the substances do give a competitive advantage.

Armstrong ended his comments by saying, “With the coming of revenue from slots, we need to be more vigilant and keep the image of racing clean.”

Grimes also offered some clarification. He said adopting the rule does not make anabolic steroids illegal.  Instead, it limits them to those listed and regulates the amounts to be given.  Grimes stated, “What we are attempting to do is have a reasonable approach to give horsemen what they need from a therapeutic standpoint, but halt abuse.”  Grimes said he felt all the information presented has helped the commission understand the issues at hand.  In his opinion, the 45 day grace period shows the commission is interested in the best interest of all involved.  In addition, the issue can be revisited if there are issues down the road.

Gorajec then offered to go through the transcript of the meeting to ensure the changes and recommendations established will be incorporated in the final rule listed.  He also urged industry stakeholders to get in contact with their representative within the RMTC to help them move forward with either the science or other issues needed to progress.

Since the meeting was running long, Chairman McNaught asked to move forward to items #7 & #8 on the agenda.  This was because some of the representatives of Centaur needed to leave the meeting soon, to honor other commitments.

The first was consideration of Centaur request to issue an additional 70,622 shares each to Centaur, Inc. shareholders, Roderick J. Racliff, R. Michael O’Malley, Michael V. Raisor, and Dr. Robert T. Williamson.  Centaur’s attorney, Robert Hagemier, explained this was really a clean-up of the previous transfer of shares approved in March 2007.  For further insight and details, Hagemier deferred to Babbitt, who stated Hoosier Park and Centaur, Inc. had provided an illustration back in March of the share transfer and any possibly coming back.  He said the transfer under consideration is in line with what was outlined by the parties involved.  The price for the shares would be $14.16, which was the pre-slots price per share.  After some consideration and review of the associated documents, Chairman McNaught made a motion to approve the transfer.  It passed unanimously.

Next was consideration of the request for approval of new Centaur, Inc. shareholders: Herman W. Hoge, Jr. (8,827 shares), Richard A. Joliff (8,827 shares), Terry J. Lahaie (8,827 shares), Linda K. Langbehm (8,827 shares) pursuant to April 20th Petition and James Wurster (17,655 shares) pursuant to Petition filed on May 21st.  Hagemier said the five proposed new shareholders had all been investigated by the commission.  In addition, he said the price for their shares is the established $14.16 per share.

Babbitt then made some additional comments.  He said this is an appropriate request and the commission would be approving the individuals and amounts with the understanding they are at the pre-slots price, subject to the issuance of satisfactory background and fingerprint checks of the individuals involved.

Grimes asked about the relationship between the approval before the IHRC and the role of the Indiana Gaming Commission.  Hagemier said his group has historically taken the stance that the IHRC is consulted before the Indiana Gaming Commission.

After some discussion about the process of approval and transfer to new shareholders, a motion was made to approve the sale.  It was passed unanimously by the commission.

After a short break for lunch, the meeting resumed.  The next item under consideration would be #3, as an attempt was made to return to the scheduled order.

Lee McNeely (with Indiana Downs) presented the next topic, Consideration of the petition of Indianapolis Downs, LLC, D/B/A Indiana Downs for approval of modifications to the physical plant of Indiana Downs, construction of a casino facility adjacent to the existing facilities, and related and necessary modifications and additions to facilities.

McNeely explained that once the IHRC gives their approval, Indiana Downs will move to the final preparations stage and go to the Indiana Gaming Commission.  He assured the commission his group will be checking back with the IHRC throughout the process to keep them abreast of everything going on with the facility.  Using large diagrams for the purpose of illustration, McNeely shared the changes found in the petition before the commission.  He said, “These are clearly a work in progress.”

In addition, McNeely said there has been some concern over not having enough space for the additional horses predicted to be attracted to the venue in the future.  He said new barn construction could take place on the land purchased, which is adjacent to the existing facility.

As far as the slots area plans, McNeely shared some background on the firms contacted to help with the plans and layout presented to the commission.  He noted they have experience in places like Las Vegas, Nevada.

McNeely admitted there are some differences between the verbiage in the petition and the drawings.  This was due to the fact the illustrations were very new.  In short, Indiana Downs was seeking permission to make modifications to the existing facility and begin construction of parking garages.  In the future, the modifications could contain additional structures, like hotels.

Noting Indiana Downs has obtained, or will obtain, all the necessary local approval, McNeely informed the commission his group wants to work hand in hand with local officials in the area.  This will become increasingly important as Phase 2 begins, where the venue could become a comprehensive entertainment destination.  He said, “If this is to occur, it must be done in an orderly fashion.”  McNeely said if establishments like Verizon Music Center in Fishers, Indiana, want to come to Indiana Downs to provide an entertainment venue, approval of changes to the facility would allow for it.  Thus, he was asking for approval of the request to make changes.

Grimes then asked for some clarification.  He asked McNeely if he was only asking for approval of Phase 1.  McNeely told Grimes he was correct, but it may not be exactly what is pictured in the diagram.  For example, as they are building the 180,000 square foot casino facility, they want to have a temporary facility within it to house a limited number of machines.  The temporary facility could be open as early as April 2008.  In addition, he said they would anticipate the remainder of the facility to be completed in early 2009.  After the facility is finished, the temporary walls would be removed and the area would be melted into the final building.

Schaefer asked about the existing racetrack facility.  McNeely said it would still be there.  Further, Schaefer inquired about layout plans.  He wondered if there will be a separate entrance for the racetrack, or if the slots area will be connected.  McNeely said the areas will be connected, but he was not sure of the method yet.

Armstrong asked if the slots patrons will be able to see racing.  McNeely said his group would like to make that a reality.  However, he pointed out there are special security concerns in a casino which must be honored.  He said they plan to check with the Indiana Gaming Commission and work on it.

Gorajec also offered a few comments, saying he was surprised an attorney would give such an aggressive timeline, but optimistic they will work toward meeting it.  He also recommended having Indiana Downs give more information to the IHRC on the horse racing portion of the facility, instead of focusing on the casino.  Gorajec said he is worried race fans will have to go through the casino to get to the racing area, noting it may be the best scenario for revenue, but not for the racing industry.  Schaefer added this was also his concern.

A motion was then made to approve the changes in the petition which, at this point, are merely conceptual.  The motion passed unanimously.

Continuing with the remaining items on the agenda, the next item was consideration of requests for live racing dates and maximum number of races per day.  These are the 2008 racing dates for Indiana Downs and Hoosier Park.

The dates for Indiana Downs were the first to be considered.  Jon Schuster, General Manager, made the presentation for the track.  Schuster said the dates submitted by Indiana Downs were established through consultation and coordination with all three breed associations, as well as Hoosier Park, in order to accommodate all industry stakeholders in the best way possible.  Schuster also briefly mentioned the 4:55 p.m. post time.  He said it was good with the Thoroughbreds, but they are waiting to evaluate its success in the Standardbreds.

In their request, the Indiana Downs Thoroughbred/Quarter Horse meet would be 54 days, running from Friday, April 25 through Tuesday, July 8.  Additionally, their Standardbred meet would be 80 days, beginning on Wednesday, July 16, and concluding on Saturday, November 8.  Armstrong asked how the number of days requested compared to the current year’s schedule.  Schuster said the total number of racing days would increase from 130 in 2007 to 134 next year.  The breeds would see 1 less day for Standardbreds and 5 additional days for Thoroughbreds.

Gorajec asked the commission to include the number of races per day, as they considered the race dates requested.  A motion to approve the 2008 race dates for Indiana Downs was made, which passed unanimously.

Rick Moore, General Manager, presented the race dates request for Hoosier Park.  He began by complimenting everyone in the industry for working together to establish the dates presented to the commission.  Requesting 71 dates for their Standardbred meet, it would run from Saturday, April 5 through Saturday, July 12.  In addition, the Hoosier Park Thoroughbred meet would be a total of 63 days, running from Friday, August 29 until Sunday, November 23.  These dates, along with the number of races per day, were unanimously approved by the commission.

The next item on the agenda was approval of the horsemen’s contract between Hoosier Park and the HBPA.  With very few changes from previous contracts, it was approved unanimously by the commission.

Since two items had been covered earlier in the meeting, the final item remaining on the agenda was approval of racing officials for Hoosier Park’s 2007 Thoroughbred/Quarter Horse meet.  Gorajec recommended approval of the officials, since there were very few alterations from those employed in previous years.  When a motion to pass the request for approval was made, it passed unanimously.

When the floor was open for revisiting old business, Shirley Tresner (QHRAI) took the opportunity to address the commission.  She asked them to consider revisiting the issue of toe grabs in Quarter Horses, once the current year’s meet ends.  In addition, she requested the commission establish a good system to use when measuring the length of toe grabs.  Chairman McNaught agreed to address her concerns in the off-season.

With no further old business to consider and no new business before the commission, the meeting was adjourned.  The next meeting is currently scheduled for Thursday, November 15, unless an earlier meeting is needed.