Congressman Andy Barr: Horseracing Integrity Act Needed

With the introduction of the Horseracing Integrity Act March 14 in the United States House of Representatives, BloodHorse online editor Frank Angst caught up with Rep. Andy Barr (Republican, Ky.), who introduced the legislation with Rep. Paul Tonko (Democrat, N.Y.)

The bill, which would create a private, independent horse racing anti-doping authority responsible for developing and administering a nationwide anti-doping and medication control program for horse racing, was introduced with 27 co-sponsors and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The Horseracing Integrity Act is backed by the Coalition for Horse Racing Integrity, a diverse group of 18 members that includes racing organizations, racetracks, owner and breeder associations, and animal welfare groups that support adoption of a national uniform standard for drug and medication rules in horse racing. CHRI counts among its members BloodHorse owners The Jockey Club and Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association. 

Five days after the bill was introduced, Barr expressed optimism because he said there is more understanding that horse racing has become an industry that is national in scope. He said the current state-by-state regulatory framework has fallen short on uniformity and noted that the current legislation would be funded within the industry—not by horseplayers through added takeout.

BloodHorse: What are some of the reasons you've been so committed to this legislation?

Andy Barr: My first term in Congress, I was learning about the issue. I had been around the horse industry my entire life, my grandfather (J. B. Faulconer) was vice president of public relations at Keeneland back in the '60s, I grew up going to Three Chimneys Farm with my friend Case Clay—being around Seattle Slew and going out to Keeneland as a young man and being a fan. You can't avoid it if you grow up in Lexington, Kentucky. Even in my law practice, as a young lawyer we represented horse farms and we worked on various issues related to the horse industry.

So I had familiarity with the industry but I spent those first few years in Congress really listening to all sides, from owners, breeders, trainers, the tracks—kind of getting a lay of the land. 

Of course this has been a long-standing movement and effort to address the issue of medication in Thoroughbred racing. I took a look at the minutes of the Jockey Club Round Table from 1980, when my grandfather was going to those meetings. In the early '80s I believe my grandfather was vice president of Thoroughbred Racing Associations. I just kind of wanted to see what my grandfather was listening to at the time. (Then Jockey Club Chairman) Nicholas Brady gave a talk and it was amazing. They were talking about the same issues 30, 40 years ago—which was 'What do we do about doping? What do we do about medication?' 

Minutes from 1980 Jockey Club Round Table



I came to the conclusion that for the future prosperity of the industry, after listening to my constituents and really absorbing the arguments on all sides, that we do need to do all we can do to ensure uniformity. Especially when you consider the differences in U.S. racing and foreign jurisdictions—where they are—I wanted to do something that would bring the U.S. up to international standards in the way we regulate medication.

BH: In terms of uniformity, there are still differences from state to state under this regulatory model. 

AB: That's a problem for me. Thoroughbred racing in the 1930s was more of an intrastate proposition. There were some horses who obviously traveled, but it wasn't like it is today. Today most Thoroughbreds are moving across state lines, their starts are at different racetracks across the country. Obviously 90% of the handle is being wagered through (advance-deposit wagering) platforms and simulcast wagering. It's not like most of the handle is at one track in one state. 

So in order to attract that new generation of fan, we need to make sure that there's uniformity in the rules of racing. I don't think anybody would say, 'Well, college basketball rules should be different because you're playing in the East Region as opposed to the South Region.' Or when Kentucky plays Abilene Christian, they're going to be playing with a 25-foot 3-point line, but when Duke plays, they're going to be playing with a 20-foot 3-point line. It's better for the sport, better for the fans, if the wagering public has confidence that all of these racehorses are racing under a single set of uniform nationwide rules. We need to do as much as we can to ensure the safety and integrity of the sport.

BH: Reading through the bill, it looks pretty similar to the legislation that was put forward two years ago. Would you say that's a pretty accurate description or are there some changes?

AB: That's pretty accurate but there are a couple of changes. We've internalized some of the feedback, particularly from the horsemen who have been particularly critical of the legislation or concerned about the legislation. 

The funding mechanism has always been kind of a sticking point. So we have incorporated into the bill a checkoff program (funding by industry stakeholders) so that not only will you not have any risk to the takeout, but there will be a checkoff formula to finance the new anti-doping authority. And that's similar to what we see in other programs in agriculture with the USDA.

BH: So you looked at some other programs to see how they do their funding and it's modeled off of that?

AB: Correct. I think it's a less controversial way of financing the regulatory structure.

More on USDA Checkoff Programs



BH: The makeup in Congress has changed since a previous version of this bill was introduced in 2017. Do you have any feel as to how that may impact its chances of advancing?

AB: You never know. In general, the legislation has momentum. Whether it's been Democrats or Republicans in charge, this has been a bipartisan effort. We had over 100 bipartisan co-sponsors in the last Congress—relatively even in terms of the distribution of the sponsors of the bill. 

Congressman Tonko serves on the committee of jurisdiction, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has helped. There's some strong support on that committee. I was able to contact Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon, the ranking Republican on that committee, about the issue and help educate him on the issue. He became interested enough to hold a hearing when Republicans were still in control of that committee. 

So it is a bipartisan effort and momentum continues to build as members of Congress become more educated and understand that this truly is interstate commerce and the Congress does have jurisdiction over the issue. Let's face it, not all members of Congress represent Saratoga or Keeneland. Not all members represent Santa Anita or Belmont. So for members who don't have a vibrant horse industry in their districts, there is a learning curve.

Reps. Barr, Tonko Reintroduce Horseracing Integrity Act

BH: Within the industry, in covering this legislation, it seems that the most divisive issue is race-day medication—Lasix. Why are you so committed to keeping the race-day medication prohibition in the bill?

AB: The coalition that backs the bill has been supportive of that. Frank Stronach's endorsement in the last Congress was really conditioned on that ban on race-day medication. I think you've seen what The Stronach Group has done in the aftermath of the tragedies in California. I applaud The Stronach Group for taking a zero tolerance policy, bringing those racetracks up to international standards. 

I want to make a point, and I think maybe some horsemen and veterinarians don't understand my views on this fully. I do not have a problem with therapeutic medication. I think there's a role for therapeutic medication. Human athletes require therapeutic medication; equine athletes need therapeutic medication. The key is, we want on race day there to be a drug-free environment where the horses are sound, where the horses are in good condition, where they are not influenced by any performance-enhancing medications, and it's truly about fair competition. That's why we think out-of-competition testing is also appropriate. 

But again, we're not proposing an anti-doping authority that would ban all medications, including all therapeutic medications, at all times. We're just saying, let's have uniform medication rules. Let's have bright lines between permissible therapeutics and impermissible performance-enhancing drugs and doping. And let's let the experts, a diverse cross-section of the industry, on what the rules should actually be.

BH: Is there support from this bill from beyond the racing industry?

AB: The Humane Society (of the United States) has always endorsed our legislation. Frankly, you have some groups out there that don't understand the industry and are frankly a little radical, like (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). One of the motivations behind the legislation is to prevent these radical organizations like PETA in their desire to destroy this wonderful industry.

The truth of the matter is that this industry treats these equine athletes, whether they're on the racetrack or retired, better than any other animals. This is a humane sport. This is a sport that treats these horses with respect and the vast, vast majority of trainers and owners and breeders—horsemen and jockeys—they take care of these animals very, very well. We want to take away any argument that any radical group like PETA could ever have to hurt our sport.