Status of KY Lasix-Free Regulation Uncertain: The Blood-Horse 9/10/15

By Ron Mitchell

The Administrative Regulation Review Subcommittee of the Kentucky legislature has voted 6-2 to find a proposed regulation permitting racetracks the option of carding furosemide-free races “deficient.”

Furosemide, commonly known as Salix or Lasix, is a widely-used anti-diuretic medication.

In a release, the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association said the 6-2 vote by the subcommittee came after representatives of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission rejected a suggestion by subcommittee co-chair Rep. Mary Lou Marzian that the regulation be deferred, pending an opinion from state Attorney General Jack Conway.

The Kentucky and national HBPA have requested Conway to determine whether granting the tracks the option of carding salix-free races is constitutional. Conway, who is a candidate to succeed Gov. Steve Beshear and whose father is a KHRC member, has yet to rule on the horsemen’s request.

Despite the subcommittee’s non-binding action, the regulation can still be sent to Beshear for consideration, according to KHRC spokesman Dick Brown. Brown said the governor’s options would be to determine if it should be withdrawn, if it should be withdrawn and amended to conform to the deficiency, or to allow it to become effective notwithstanding the deficiency finding.

“We sincerely appreciate the efforts of the ARRS committee,” said Rick Hiles, president of the Kentucky HBPA. “We provided a tremendous amount of information regarding horsemen’s concerns with the regulation. They listened and asked relevant questions of both the KHRC and the Kentucky and national HBPAs.”

According to Brown, who said the commission was considering its options in light of the subcommittee action, it is unknown why the subcommittee found the proposal deficient.

Brown said the subcommittee “may make a non-binding determination” that a regulation is deficient based upon the following reasons:

1. It is wrongfully promulgated.
2. It appears to be in conflict with an existing statute.
3. It appears to have no statutory authority for its promulgation.
4. It appears to impose stricter or more burdensome state requirements than required by the federal mandate, without reasonable justification.
5. It fails to use tiering when tiering is applicable.
6. It is in excess of the administrative body’s authority.
7. It appears to impose an unreasonable burden on government or small business, or both.
8. It appears to be deficient in any other manner.