RMTC

By T. D. Thornton

Don’t expect to see any Lasix-free races soon in the Golden State, but the California Horse Racing Board is zeroing in on proactive ways to head off other “emerging threats” to equine welfare, like requiring post-mortem reviews of all on-track fatalities, focusing on quality instead of quantity when it comes to veterinary exams, and figuring out ways to better test for gene doping and the abuse of growth hormones.

In a nearly three-hour CHRB meeting Thursday that focused heavily on how the state’s racing dates landscape might play out over the next 18 months, the discussion about equine welfare issues was brief, but to the point in a presentation made by commissioner Madeline Auerbach, who detailed the recent proposals that have emerged from the CHRB’s Medication and Track Safety Committee.

Auerbach said a committee proposal to allow racing secretaries to write races restricted to horses that do not receive Lasix within 24 hours of post time “was the most heated discussion that we had. The bottom line was that there does not appear to be an appetite at this time among the stakeholders for this amendment to proceed. So that’s where we are right now. The folks who are in the game don’t want it at this point.”

While a rule change to sanction Lasix-free races will not be brought before the entire CHRB for a vote, Auerbach stressed that other safety initiatives will be moving forward.

“Instead of playing catch-up, the idea was that we could be ahead of the curve” on emerging threats, Auerbach said. One such plan is a proposed amendment to rule 1846.6 that would establish a protocol requiring a post-mortem exam of each equine fatality that occurs on licensed CHRB property. Currently, CHRB staff is moving ahead with drafting language for the amendment.

A “review panel” would seek out testimony from owners, trainers and vets who are associated with deceased horses, although Auerbach said she envisioned that any information gathered from such reports should not be used to take punitive action against licensees. Rather, she explained, the idea is to encourage horsemen and vets to be open and honest in post-mortem interviews, with the goal of bettering overall equine welfare.

“It’s great to gather the information, but there’s coming a point now where we need to utilize it and see what we can do to better protect the horses

[moving forward after a fatality],” Auerbach said. “My biggest concern, and I think this was shared by people, [was] that no sanctions would emanate from this review board, because I want it to be a process where we learn something” without trainers and owners fearing their admissions could be used to penalize them.

This initiative was presented against the backdrop of a CHRB report that revealed there were 199 track-related fatalities in California during the 2013-14 fiscal year. Of those, Auerbach said, 52 involved non-exercise related causes.

The number of overall fatalities for the previous fiscal period, Auerbach said, was 209.

In terms of combating new performance-enhancing substances, Auerbach cited work by CHRB equine medical director Dr. Rick Arthur, DVM, to ensure that the Kenneth L. Maddy Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory, the state’s testing facility, is “continually conferring” with other equine and human drug labs to keep abreast of emerging doping threats.

“There were specific items that we talked about, such as new compounds appearing in humans with growth hormones,” Auerbach said. “We talked about gene therapy….how it’s rapidly developing and changing things. And we also talked about the lab’s abilities–or inabilities–to find these various situations that are happening.”

In addition, Auerbach reported that the medication and safety committee found the state’s pre- and post-race exam staffing levels to be inadequate.

“Dr. Arthur pointed out that we don’t have as many vets examining the horses at the track as other locales have,” Auerbach said. “There’s very little time that they can actually look at [each] horse, and it’s because it’s more about numbers than it is about quality.”

Possible solutions include increasing staffing and digitizing records. Auerbach said there was sentiment from within the committee that the CHRB would “prefer that the industry find a solution to make sure we have enough vets rather than the board mandat[ing] how many vets” there are.

None of the above equine welfare issues came up for a formal vote. But one safety consideration that did get passed unanimously–and with zero discussion–was the removal of CHRB language that had previously required any Thoroughbred racing association that operated a meet four weeks or longer to install a polymer synthetic racing surface.

The synthetic rule was passed somewhat controversially–and at a statewide expense of tens of millions of dollars–in 2006 in an attempt to improve safety issues that, at the time, were blamed on conventional dirt surfaces.

With Del Mar going back to dirt this season, Golden Gate Fields’ Tapeta surface is the last remaining synthetic track in the state.

Other votes at Thursday’s meeting included the approval of upcoming race meets at Golden Gate and the Humboldt Country Fair in Ferndale. Golden Gate faced considerable grilling for not presenting a detailed marketing plan about how it would promote its upcoming meet.

The back-and-forth criticism between board members and Golden Gate officials over whether the track was making a solid effort to promote its product led into broader discussion about how the CHRB might allocate 2016 race dates throughout the state.

With regard to Northern California, there was testimony that Golden Gate wasn’t happy about being stuck with winter dates when dreary weather prevails, while it was pointed out that some fairs licensees might be eager to expand their dates allocations.

Southern California is still trying to cope with the subtraction of Hollywood Park from the circuit, and there was debate about how Los Alamitos Race Course found it difficult to have to run in December, take a half year off, then open for an eight-day July mini-meet that leads into Del Mar.

Commissioner George Krikorian detailed that while Santa Anita and Del Mar are content to keep the same dates footprints they have been allotted for 2014 and 2015, Los Alamitos would prefer to have two four-week meets, perhaps accomplished in part by adding the current mid-December dark week on the Southern California racing schedule.

“My opinion is we need to be thoughtful before making any decisions on giving out the dates,” Krikorian said. “Decisions should not be based on prior years’ allocations. Stabling commitments and fees are as important to establish racing dates as anything. They do tie together.

“We need to think outside the box, and not make long-term commitments without clear, long-term commitments from the tracks,” Krikorian continued. “We need to consider the next 20 years, not the next 10 years, and we need to require that all commitments be put into writing.”

CHRB chairman Chuck Winner praised the tracks in both geographic areas for coming together at a recent informal meeting to try and work out dates solutions in advance of their applications.

But, Winner added, “one has to anticipate that there are going to be disagreements when it comes to race dates. And there are disagreements…We got a lot of different calendars suggested, which is what one would expect.”

Winner said the dates allocations for both regions of the state would be placed on the agenda for the August CHRB meeting.