CHRB Delays Out-of-Competition Testing Proposal

The California Horse Racing Board delayed a proposal on out-of-competition testing changes, which would have aligned California with several major racing states and with the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium's National Uniform Medication Program, during its scheduled monthly meeting June 21 at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton.

The proposal, which sought to alter procedures, set guidelines, and apply penalties for "non-compliance" of out-of-competition testing rules in the state, was opposed by the California Thoroughbred Trainers and the Thoroughbred Owners of California, although both parties said they don't object to out-of-competition testing in principle.

After a lengthy discussion between CHRB members, CHRB medical director Dr. Rick Arthur, and representatives from the TOC and CTT, the board, albeit reluctantly, decided to send the proposal back to the committee.

Although CTT executive director Alan Balch was asked several times by CHRB board members to distill the organization's reasoning for opposing the proposal, he largely declined to explain and instead pointed to a document submitted to the board June 6 that was drafted by lawyers who represent the CTT and TOC.

The document from the law offices of Yoka & Smith, LLP lays out several bullet points to explain the groups' opposition, including that the board has not provided "evidence of necessity" for the proposed changes, issues with liability to owners and trainers with horses outside of racing facilities, lack of evidence "that any of the extensive list of (proposed) substances ... to ban in out-of-competition testing could affect racing performance if administered in an out-of-competition setting," and that the CHRB proposal would "improperly restrict or prohibit outright the veterinary use of legally compounded medications."

Balch's tactic was not taken well by CHRB chairman Chuck Winner and vice chairman Madeline Auerbach.

"Let's not obliterate the process by throwing all this junk at it," Auerbach said. "Let's be really candid here. That's a lot of 'blah, blah, blah.' Get specific. What is the problem? Come on."

"I believe the specifics are set forth very clearly in our letter (from) June 6," Balch responded.

"We're asking you now to synopsize it, Alan, so everybody on this board, without going through the gobbledygook—what is it in the proposed rule that is so objectionable to you that we should start this process all over again?" Winner said.

One of the main issues from both groups appears to be who will be held responsible for a horse that tests positive off racetrack grounds at a non-racing facility, and Balch eventually voiced that concern.

"The distinction on horses who are trained in locations not under CHRB supervision is critical and one that we raised at the RMTC, because it's very important, in any kind of rule to prevent cheating, that the responsible parties be identified," Balch said. "That's been a standing problem with every iteration of the out-of-competition rules we have seen in any state. In other words, who is responsible for the horse once it leaves the racetrack?"

Arthur laid out the reasoning for the proposed changes in the first half of the discussion, then frequently bristled when the measures were opposed by Balch and TOC president and CEO Greg Avioli.

"We have limited ability to prosecute out-of-competition testing with current regulations. ... In reality, horse racing does not have a robust anti-doping program," Arthur said. "It can be best described as a medication control program. Medication control is very important and necessary. We not only need to test for performance-enhancing drugs, as is the focus in human sport testing, but for drugs that impact horse welfare and horse and jockey safety. ... Horse racing must also deal with performance-hindering drugs that could be used to stop a horse from its best performance, which is not generally considered a problem in human sport.

Arthur continued to point out the need for out-of-competition testing because "races are won in training," where he said doping is most effective.

"Everyone also knows when we are going to test the horses—right after the race," he said. "That is pretty easy to plan around if you are bent on cheating. ... Here is the question for this board and the leaders in this sport—do you want a real anti-doping program or not? Bluntly, without an (out-of-competition) program with teeth, you won't have one."

Arthur questioned why the TOC and CTT would object to the out-of-competition testing, and multiple heated, sometimes personal, exchanges between him, Avioli, and Balch followed.

"The impression that Dr. Arthur has left, whether intentionally or not, is that somehow these organizations of ours condone or want to permit cheating. ... That is of course, absolutely wrong," Balch said.

Late in the discussion, Avioli had a shouting outburst in response to Arthur expressing frustration "that the horsemen are coming in at the last minute and putting up a roadblock." Earlier, Arthur told the board—when it became clear the proposal would not be approved Thursday—"If you don't see how you're being played, I don't know what to do."

"I've had just about enough of Dr. Arthur," Avioli said. "I'd like the board to remember his outbursts in June of 2017. His outbursts at Mr. Balch were so bad that we complained to the CHRB, and we were told this was Dr. Arthur's last year, and Dr. Arthur is still here.

"Enough is enough. He's supposed to represent the state, and we're sick and tired of his detrimental, challenging remarks to the TOC and CTT. You need to go do something else."

Ultimately, the board decided to shelve the proposal and send it back to the Medication, Safety, and Welfare Committee, which Auerbach chairs. Auerbach warned Balch and Avioli, however, to be ready to talk productively at a future committee meeting.

"I want a very specific list and agenda of what you find objectionable, and I want it pared down," Auerbach said. "I will not read a 40-page lawyer's letter like you sent last time, because I looked at it, read it, and threw it up in the air. Because, quite frankly, a lot of it was billable hours that had nothing to do with anything that means anything for racing. I don't care about lawyers' letters, and I don't care about all of the fluff. I care about the horses—period, end of report—and the people that ride them and work around them. That's all I care about.

"I'll be happy to hold a meeting, not a 'working group' (which was proposed by Balch). A meeting with everybody sitting at the table, telling me specifically what the problem is with each and every issue that both groups have. I am willing to do it, but I am willing to do it once, and we'll sit there and figure it out, because I am not going to go around for the next three years trying to resolve this."