Notice2024-06911
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Racetrack Safety Rule Modification
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 8, 2024
Effective
July 8, 2024
Issuing agencies
Federal Trade Commission
Abstract
As required by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, the Federal Trade Commission publishes a proposed modification of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority's rules addressing horseracing in the United States. The proposed rule modification would amend the Rule Series 2000 Racetrack Safety Rule, which establishes rules concerning racetrack safety and the safety of Covered Horses and Covered Persons. This document contains the Authority's proposed rule modification's text and explanation, and it seeks public comment on whether the Commission should approve the proposed rule modification.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 68 (Monday, April 8, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 68 (Monday, April 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24574-24626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06911]
[[Page 24573]]
Vol. 89
Monday,
No. 68
April 8, 2024
Part II
Federal Trade Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Racetrack Safety Rule
Modification; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 68 / Monday, April 8, 2024 /
Notices
[[Page 24574]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[File No. P222100]
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Racetrack Safety Rule
Modification
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA)
proposed rule modification; request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As required by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of
2020, the Federal Trade Commission publishes a proposed modification of
the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority's rules addressing
horseracing in the United States. The proposed rule modification would
amend the Rule Series 2000 Racetrack Safety Rule, which establishes
rules concerning racetrack safety and the safety of Covered Horses and
Covered Persons. This document contains the Authority's proposed rule
modification's text and explanation, and it seeks public comment on
whether the Commission should approve the proposed rule modification.
DATES: The Commission must approve or disapprove the proposed
modification on or before June 7, 2024. If approved, the proposed rule
modification would be effective on July 8, 2024. Comments must be filed
on or before April 22, 2024.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by
following the instructions in the Comment Submissions part of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ``HISA Racetrack Safety
Rule Modification'' on your comment and file your comment online at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> by following the instructions on the web-
based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your
comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of
the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex H),
Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Botha (202-326-2036), Attorney
Advisor and Acting HISA Program Manager, Office of the Executive
Director, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 \1\ (the ``Act'')
recognizes a self-regulatory nonprofit organization, the Horseracing
Integrity and Safety Authority (``HISA'' or the ``Authority''), which
is charged with developing proposed rules on a variety of subjects.
Those proposed rules and later proposed rule modifications take effect
only if approved by the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or the
``Commission'').\2\ The proposed rules and rule modifications must be
published in the Federal Register for public comment.\3\ Thereafter,
the Commission has 60 days from the date of publication to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule or rule modification.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 3051 through 3060.
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 3053(b)(2).
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 3053(b)(1).
\4\ 15 U.S.C. 3053(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to section 3053(a) of the Act and Commission Rule 1.142,
notice is hereby given that, on September 21, 2023, the Authority filed
with the Commission a proposed Racetrack Safety Rule modification and
supporting documentation as described in Items I, II, III, and IX
below, which Items have been prepared by the Authority. The Office of
the Secretary of the Commission determined that the filing complied
with the Commission's rule governing such submissions.\5\ The
Commission is publishing this document to solicit comments on the
proposed rule modification from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 16 CFR 1.140 through 1.144; see also FTC, Procedures for
Submission of Rules Under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act,
86 FR 54819 (Oct. 5, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Background, Purpose
of, and Statutory Basis for the Proposed Rule Modification
a. Background and Purpose
The Act recognizes that a national uniform set of standards for
racetrack safety will apply to a broad range of racetracks with widely
varying environments in terms of economic structure, race dates,
physical attributes, prevailing weather conditions, and other factors.
As such, the Act directs the Authority to develop and implement
``training and racing safety standards and protocols taking into
account regional differences and the character of differing racing
facilities.'' \6\ The Racetrack Safety Rule utilized a practical
approach to this implementation, recognizing that some practices are
already in place or can be put in place immediately, while others will
require adequate time and resources to implement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 3056(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As directed in section 3052(c)(2) of the Act, the Authority's
Racetrack Safety Standing Committee (the ``Committee'') was constituted
and undertook developing a comprehensive proposed rule setting forth a
uniform set of training and racing safety standards and protocols.
Since the initial Racetrack Safety Rule was submitted to the
Commission,\7\ the Committee has spent hundreds of hours over the last
twenty months reviewing and analyzing modifications to the safety rules
that will enhance human and horse safety and welfare issues. The
Committee is comprised of four independent members and three industry
members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See FTC, Notice of HISA Racetrack Safety Proposed Rule, 87
FR 435 (Jan. 5, 2022) (``2022 Proposed Rule Notice''); FTC, Order
Approving the Racetrack Safety Rule Proposed by the Horseracing
Integrity and Safety Authority (Mar. 3, 2022), <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/order_re_racetrack_safety_2022-3-3_for_publication.pdf">https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/order_re_racetrack_safety_2022-3-3_for_publication.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This submission is also made in order to comply with the
Commission's March 27, 2023 Order that directed ``the Authority to
review all of its existing rules (Racetrack Safety, Assessment
Methodology, Enforcement, Registration, and [Anti-Doping and Medication
Control (``ADMC'')]) and submit any proposed rule modifications to the
Commission by September 27, 2023.'' \8\ The Authority has reviewed all
of its existing rules and this submission was the first to be filed in
accordance with the March 27, 2023, Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ FTC, Order Approving the Anti-Doping and Medication Control
Rule Proposed by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority at 6
(Mar. 27, 2023), <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P222100CommissionOrderAntiDopingMedication.pdf">https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P222100CommissionOrderAntiDopingMedication.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 29, 2023, for the first draft of the Rule 2100
modifications, and on May 9, 2023, for the first draft of the Rule 2200
modifications, HISA representatives shared a draft of the these
proposed rule modifications with the following interested stakeholders
for input: Racing Officials Accreditation Program; Racing Medication
and Testing Consortium (Scientific Advisory Committee); Water Hay Oats
Alliance; National Thoroughbred Racing Association; The Jockey Club;
The Jockeys' Guild; Thoroughbred Racing Association; Arapahoe Park;
Rillito Downs; Thoroughbred Owners of California; California Horse
Racing Board; Kentucky Racing Commission; Delaware Racing Commission;
Maryland Racing Commission; National Horsemen's Benevolent and
Protective Association; Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association;
Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association; Kentucky Thoroughbred
Association; American Association of Equine Practitioners; American
Veterinary Medical Association; Stronach Racing Group (5
[[Page 24575]]
thoroughbred racetracks); Churchill Downs (6 thoroughbred racetracks);
Breeders' Cup; Keeneland; Del Mar; and the Racing Operations Committee.
Additionally, both drafts of the proposed modifications were made
available to the public for review and comment on the HISA website at
<a href="https://hisaus.org/">https://hisaus.org/</a>. On July 24, 2023, for the second draft of the Rule
2100 modifications, and on July 30, 2023, for the second draft of the
Rule 2200 modifications, HISA representatives shared a draft of these
proposed rule modifications with the interested stakeholders set forth
above for input. On July 24, 2023, the revised Rule 2100 modifications
were made available to the public for review and comment on the HISA
website at <a href="https://www.hisaus.org/">https://www.hisaus.org/</a>. On July 31, 2023, the revised Rule
2200 modifications were made available to the public for review and
comment on the HISA website at <a href="https://www.hisaus.org/">https://www.hisaus.org/</a>. Voluminous
comments were received from various stakeholders, which are outlined in
Item II of this publication. Attached to this publication is Exhibit A,
which includes copies of all comments received concerning the rule
modification proposal.
In accordance with the Commission's March 27, 2023 Order, the
Authority's submission in support of the proposed rule modification
discusses each of the suggestions made by commenters on the Federal
Register from the original Racetrack Safety Rule submission where the
Authority in its February 2, 2022 letter to the Commission \9\ (the
``February 2, 2022 Letter'') committed to further consider the
suggestions. In accordance with the Order, Item III below sets forth
the relevant comments and states the reasons why the Authority did or
did not adopt the suggestions within the text of the proposed rule
modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This letter is available on the docket for the 2022 Proposed
Rule Notice at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2021-0076/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2021-0076/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Authority's Rule 2000 safety rules were implemented in racing
jurisdictions nationwide on July 1, 2022. Since that time Covered
Horseraces have been successfully conducted under a uniform set of
rules devoted to equine and human health and safety, and that serve to
ensure that horseracing under the jurisdiction of the Authority is
conducted in the safest manner possible. Since July 1, 2022, the
Authority has closely observed the rules in action, the Authority staff
have engaged on a daily basis with the implementation of the rules, and
many helpful comments have been received from members of the industry
concerning the numerous aspects of the rules. Throughout this process,
the Authority has been careful to focus on the further development and
modification of various rules to enhance racetrack safety and welfare.
After much study and analysis under the direction of the Authority's
Racetrack Safety Committee, the Authority now submits this proposed
modification to the Rule 2000 Series. The submission consists of a
comprehensive set of modifications to many of the rules, as described
in detail in this publication. In some instances, modifications are
proposed to include more detail concerning a regulated activity, or to
create new instrumentalities to further the purposes of the Act (as in
the creation of the concept of Designated Equine Facilities in Rule
2144). In other instances, modifications are proposed to address
unanticipated circumstances encountered in the implementation of the
rules, or to provide clarity where questions have surfaced concerning
the proper implementation of the rules in various situations. The
reasons for the modifications, and any problems the modifications are
intended to address and resolve, are outlined in the discussion of each
particular rule modification.
In general, the Authority states that the rule modifications will
affect Covered Horses by ensuring that races are run on safe racing
surfaces and with properly inspected equipment and highly trained
racetrack personnel; these matters are examined by the Authority's
accreditation team pursuant to the Rule 2100 series. Numerous
modifications are proposed for the accreditation rules to ensure timely
and accurate reporting of information. In addition, Covered Horses will
be affected by and benefit from procedures implemented to ensure the
timely and accurate reporting of equine injuries and fatalities, rule
modifications pertaining to veterinary examinations, the veterinarian's
list, horseshoe inspections, and the performance of necropsies. These
are only a few examples; all of the modifications are described further
in this publication.
Covered Persons will be affected by and benefit from the proposed
rule modifications as well. A chief example, and a matter of particular
concern to the Authority, are the measures taken to safeguard the
safety of Jockeys and other riders on the racetrack grounds. This
publication will outline in detail the significant modification of
provisions concerning Jockey concussion protocols, physical
examinations, and human ambulance support.
Covered Horseraces will be affected by and benefit from the
modifications in additional ways as described herein. The efficient
running of claiming races will be much enhanced by the modifications to
the claiming rules set forth in Rule 2262.\10\ The prompt and efficient
resolution of violations of the rules of racing will be enhanced by
modifications to the riding crop rules and penalty structure, as well
as the establishment of an intermediate appeal process that will hasten
the resolution of riding crop violations. When the rules of racing are
strongly enforced, Covered Horseraces will be run in a safe manner that
directly affects and benefits both Covered Horses and Covered Persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A ``Claiming Race'' is defined in HISA Rule 1020 as a
Covered Horserace in which a Covered Horse, after leaving the
starting gate, may be claimed (or, purchased for a designated
amount) in accordance with the rules and regulations of the
applicable State Racing Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Authority is always open to comments from industry
participants, and in the development of rule modifications, these
comments have often led to the consideration and adoption of
alternatives in the proposed rule drafts circulated to the industry. In
the numerous instances in which alternatives to the proposed
modifications were considered, this publication will describe the
proposals and state the reasons why a proposal was adopted or rejected
by the Authority, or in some cases deferred for future consideration.
The Authority states that the proposed rule modifications in this
submission are consistent with the Act. The proposed rule modifications
meet the requirements in 15 U.S.C. 3056(b), because the modifications
are made to the originally filed safety rules that were crafted upon
and established the 12 elements of the horseracing safety program as
enumerated in 15 U.S.C. 3056(b). The new provisions that are
established in these proposed rule modifications are also within the
ambit of the elements of the horseracing safety program. Furthermore,
the Authority incorporates by reference into this modification the
existing standards that were set forth in the Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule previously submitted to the Commission in the original
filing of the Rule 2000 Series on December 6, 2021.\11\ As was the case
then, and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 3056(a)(2), the rule modifications
herein take into
[[Page 24576]]
consideration existing safety standards, including the National
Thoroughbred Racing Association Safety and Integrity Alliance Code of
Standards, Association of Racing Commissioners International (``ARCI'')
Model Rules, the International Federation of Horseracing Authority's
International Agreement on Breeding, Racing, and Wagering, and the
British Horseracing Authority's Equine Health and Welfare program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ This supporting documentation is available on the docket
for the 2022 Proposed Rule Notice at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2021-0076/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2021-0076/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the review, input and ultimate approval of the Authority's
Board of Directors, the proposed modifications to the Rule 2000 Series
modify and enhance the penalties and adjudication procedures for the
enforcement of rules promulgated by the Authority. The Authority
submits herewith the proposed rules for Commission approval.
b. Statutory Basis
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, 15 U.S.C. 3051
through 3060.
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Modification
Rule 2010. Definitions
a. References to Corresponding Definition in Rule 1020
Various definitions currently established in Rule 2010 are also
referenced in Rule 1020 of the ADMC Program Rules. The following
definitions have been modified to reference the corresponding
definition in Rule 1020, for consistent usage throughout the
Authority's Rules: Act, Adverse Analytical Finding, Association
Veterinarian, Attending Veterinarian, Authority, Claim, Claiming Race,
Commission, Covered Horse, Covered Horserace or Race, Covered Person,
Designated Owner, Owner, Person, Prohibited List, Prohibited Methods,
Prohibited Substance, Protocol, Race Day, Regulatory Veterinarian,
Responsible Person, State Racing Commission, Timed and Reported
Workout, Trainer, Training Facility, Veterinarian, Vets' List Workout,
and Workout.
b. Proposed New Definitions
The Authority proposes to add several new terms to the definitions
section in Rule 2010 to aid in the proper interpretation and
application of the Authority's existing and proposed new rules included
in the Rule 2100 and Rule 2200 Series of the Racetrack Safety Rule. The
proposed new definitions are set forth below.
Catastrophic Injury means an Equine Injury that resulted in death
or euthanasia of a Covered Horse within 72 hours of injury.
A commenter requested that the definition of Catastrophic Injury be
broadened to include both sickness and accidents, and that it
specifically incorporate the concept of sudden death, maintaining that
sudden death is not an ``injury.'' \12\ The Authority believes the
proposed modification in its current form is appropriate, but will
consider this comment in further deliberations upon rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ California Horse Racing Board (``CHRB'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designated Equine Facility means an equine facility designated by a
Racetrack in accordance with the procedures established in Rule 2144,
whose biosecurity protocols are consistent with those of the Racetrack,
and from which the Racetrack will accept horses onto its grounds with a
valid health certificate issued within the last 30 days or in a shorter
period of time if high risk situations dictate.
This term was modified significantly over the two rounds of
informal public comment. The original draft stated that the required
biosecurity protocols be ``reasonably consistent,'' but in response to
comment the definition was revised to require the protocols to be
``consistent.'' \13\ The same commenter suggested that the protocols be
specified in the rule.\14\ The Authority declines to adopt this
suggestion, as it is incumbent upon the Racetracks to apply and review
the appropriate biosecurity protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Jockey Club.
\14\ The Jockey Club.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters suggested that the definition should be written
to give the state racing commission the duty to approve the designation
by the Racetrack.\15\ The Authority considered this comment, but
declined to adopt the idea because not all state racing commissions
have a process in place to review and approve designated equine
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Jockey Club, Tom Robbins, Racing Operations Committee
(``ROCO'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters stated that no health certificate should be
required for horses that ship to a Racetrack from training facilities
owned by the Racetrack, and that to impose this requirement places an
undue burden on horsemen, attending vets, and stable gate
personnel.\16\ The Authority on balance does not consider the
requirement to be an undue burden when weighed against the health and
safety of Covered Horses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland,
Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epistaxis means that blood from one or both nostrils of a Covered
Horse has been observed after exercise, attributable to an episode of
exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (``EIPH''). The term Epistaxis is
referred to in numerous places in the Rule 2000 Series, and especially
in Rules 2240 and 2241 concerning the Veterinarians' list. This
definition will make it clear that the only horses subject to
regulatory action are those experiencing EIPH to the degree they show
signs of Epistaxis. The definition of the term Bled will be deleted in
this rule modification.
Equine Injury means an injury to a Covered Horse that occurred
during racing or training for which intervention by the Regulatory
Veterinarian or reporting by the Safety Director pursuant to Rule 2131
is required, and for which an injury report must be submitted pursuant
to the Rule 2000 Series.
A commenter asked whether entering injury information into the
Equine Injury Database is sufficient to satisfy the reporting
requirement.\17\ In answer, the Authority notes that it is sufficient
if the Racetrack shares with the Authority information entered into the
Equine Injury Database; however, not all Racetracks do so. The
Authority does not believe the filing of an injury report is unduly
burdensome but will consider this possible concept in future
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter opined that the definition is too broad and that the
definition should apply to horses whose participation in racing or
training has been restricted, in a manner similar to the definition of
human injury.\18\ The Authority notes that drafting the definition in a
manner similar to the Human Injury definition would actually broaden
the definition to include conditions that might temporarily restrict a
horse's participation but are not reportable. The reporting obligation
in the proposed rule is more appropriately keyed to intervention by the
Regulatory Veterinarian or reporting by the Safety Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, and Mid-
Atlantic Strategic Plan to Reduce Equine Fatalities (collectively,
``THA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equine Mortality means a fatality of a Covered Horse that is not
attributable to a Catastrophic Injury.
This definition is added to facilitate the distinction between
Equine Mortality and Catastrophic Injury, which is used in prescribing
the duties of the Racetrack Risk Management Committee in new provisions
proposed to be added in Rule 2112.
[[Page 24577]]
Exercise Rider means a rider of a Covered Horse during a training
activity that is not a Covered Horserace.
The defined term is included in the application of several proposed
rules that are necessary to regulate the safety and conduct of persons
mounted on horses on the grounds of the Racetrack.
Farrier means a farrier (or horseshoer, plater or blacksmith) who
provides all aspects of hoof care or orthotic services to Covered
Horses, including trimming and/or the application of various orthotics
to the hoof.
This new definition is added to define the term as used in proposed
new Rule 2138 and elsewhere in the proposed rules.
Horseshoe Inspector means a person (for example, a paddock farrier)
employed, contracted, or appointed by a State Racing Commission,
Racetrack, or the Authority, who has been trained in, and is
responsible for, inspecting horseshoes or other orthotics on hooves of
Covered Horses.
This definition establishes the new position of Horseshoe
Inspector, who will inspect horseshoes under new rules of the
Authority. These inspections are a vital component in ensuring the
health and safety of Covered Horses.
A commenter asked if the qualifications of the horseshoe inspector
can be defined.\19\ The Authority believes that it is unnecessary to
prescribe at length the specific qualifications of the Horseshoe
Inspector and further notes that minimum qualifications for this
position are set out in Rule 2137(b). The Authority exercises oversight
over personnel performing functions on its behalf that allows the
Authority to ensure that personnel are qualified to perform their
duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association
(``HBPA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Injury means an injury to a Covered Person that requires
medical attention and, as a result, may restrict a Covered Person's
current or future participation or employment in racing, and for which
an injury report must be submitted.
The Authority adopted the suggestion that the definition refer to
current or future participation in racing.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Breeders' Cup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In line with another commenter's query as to the extent of the
persons who are embraced by the rule, the word ``individual'' was
replaced by ``Covered Person.'' \21\ The commenter also asked who must
submit the report.\22\ A commenter suggested the term ``may restrict,''
since at the time of the report the effects of the injury may not be
known. This phrase was incorporated into the definition.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ HBPA.
\22\ HBPA. The Medical Director must submit the report under
Rule 2132.
\23\ CHRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layoff Report means a report completed in a manner prescribed by
the Authority and submitted by the Trainer or Trainer's designee for a
Covered Horse that has not raced in a Covered Horserace for 150
consecutive days or more. The Layoff Report shall include, at a
minimum, information regarding all examinations, medical treatments,
surgical treatments, and exercise history of the Covered Horse during
the layoff period.
This definition is added to define the term Layoff Report in accord
with the new provision creating the obligation to provide Layoff
Reports in Rule 2142(a).
A commenter asked whether the Authority already has all of the
information included in the definition of Layoff Report.\24\ The
Authority does not have all of the information; during a typical layoff
period, much of the information is not subject to the Authority's
reporting requirements. Another commenter queried concerning the length
of time over which records will be required to be provided, suggesting
that a period of 30 days prior to submission should be sufficient.\25\
In response, the Authority notes that the Rule requires reporting ``in
a manner prescribed by the Authority,'' and the Authority will specify
a reasonable span of time for which the information is requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The Jockey Club.
\25\ THA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outrider means a rider employed or contracted by the Racetrack who
oversees and assists with the safety of all Riders, Trainers, and
horses on the Racetrack.
The definition is added because various rules govern the
responsibilities and duties of Outriders.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup,
and 1/ST Racing made helpful suggestions to the wording, including
the inclusion of the reference to ``contracted by.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pony Horse means a horse, including the Outrider's horse, that
accompanies a Covered Horse(s) during training or racing activities.
This definition is added because various new provisions create
rules governing Pony Horses and racehorses in the same manner.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup,
and 1/ST Racing offered a helpful suggestion which resulted in the
inclusion of a reference to the Outrider's horse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Racetrack Risk Management Committee means the committee established
pursuant to Rule 2121.
This definition is added in order to change the name of the
Racetrack Safety and Welfare Committee to the Racetrack Risk Management
Committee. The term Racetrack Safety and Welfare Committee has caused
confusion due to its similarity to the term Racetrack Safety Committee.
Racetrack Safety Committee means the committee (or its delegate)
established pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 3052(c)(2).
The definition is modified to include the words ``or its
delegate,'' which is necessary to specify that the Racetrack Safety
Committee has the power to delegate certain responsibilities and duties
to other functionaries under the supervision of the Racetrack Safety
Committee.
Rider means any person who is mounted on a Covered Horse or Pony
Horse on the Racetrack, including a Jockey.
This definition is proposed in order to cover in one term the
various racing participants who are mounted on Covered Horses or Pony
Horses on the Racetrack. Several proposed rules and modifications refer
to all such participants, who are now referred to as Riders. For the
sake of clarity, the definition explicitly states that the term Rider
includes Jockeys.
Safety Program Effective Date means July 1, 2022.
Traction Device means any device that extends beyond the ground
surface of the horseshoe and includes but is not limited to inserts,
wear plates, rims, toe grabs, bends, jar calks, stickers, ice nails,
frost nails, and mud nails.
A definition of Traction Device is added which aids in the proper
interpretation of the Rule 2276 Horseshoe Rule. Traction devices have
been thought to increase a horse's ability to ``dig in'' to the track
surface to enhance propulsion and to prevent slipping. Traction devices
also reduce the horse's ability to plant its hoof level with a hard
surface and to dampen forces from the ground to the limb by inhibiting
hoof movement through the surface. These effects can contribute to
catastrophic musculoskeletal injuries. Rule 2276 follows scientific
evidence that toe grab traction devices are associated with equine
catastrophic injuries and appropriately limits the height of rims used
as traction devices on forelimb and hindlimb horseshoes. The rule
prohibits use of any other traction devices.
Veterinarians' List means a list maintained, or approved for use,
by the Authority of all Covered Horses that are determined to be
ineligible to compete in a Covered Horserace in any
[[Page 24578]]
jurisdiction until released by a Regulatory Veterinarian.
This definition is added to define the Veterinarians' List more
clearly. The term is used extensively in conjunction with Rules 2240,
2241, and 2242, and aids in the application of those rules. A commenter
suggested inclusion of the phrase ``approved for use,'' as it appears
in the modification.\28\ The phrase is used to allow for flexibility in
the event that the Authority does not itself maintain the list, but
instead at some point in time utilizes a list maintained by another
organization pursuant to an agreement with the Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The Jockey Club.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Additional Proposed Modifications
The Authority proposes additional modifications to the definitions
as set forth below:
Groom means a Covered Person who is engaged by a Responsible Person
to assist in the daily physical care of Covered Horses.
Jockey means a rider licensed in any state and registered with the
Authority to ride a Covered Horse in a Covered Horserace.
The Jockeys' Guild requested that the rule specify the rider of a
Covered Horse in a Covered Horserace ``or during training.'' The
request is understandable but unnecessary, as the rule only requires
licensure and registration of the rider; the definition does not
exclude Jockeys from the ambit of the Authority's regulatory provisions
simply because an activity occurs during training hours rather a horse
race.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting Gate Person means any individual licensed as a starter,
assistant starter, or any individual who handles Covered Horses in the
starting gate.
Veterinarian shall have the meaning set forth in Rule 1020.
Notwithstanding any provision set forth in the Rule 9000 Series
(Registration Rules), a Veterinarian who provides veterinarian services
to Covered Horses shall register with the Authority.
The definition is modified to state that it has the meaning set
forth in Rule 1020. In addition, a new sentence is added that requires
Veterinarians who provide services to Covered Horses to register with
the Authority. The safety and welfare of Covered Horses are of
paramount concern to the Authority, and it is vital that information
concerning any treatment rendered to Covered Horses be provided to the
Authority, along with the identity of, and contact information for, the
Veterinarian who has treated the Covered Horse. Registration of
Veterinarians with the Authority is the most effective means to obtain
the required information.
The following list contains those definitions that are modified
with only a change in the form of the citation:
Lead Veterinarian means any Veterinarian appointed pursuant to Rule
2134(c).
Racetrack Safety Accreditation or Accreditation means the process
for achieving, and the issuance of, safety Accreditation to a Racetrack
in accordance with Rules 2100 through 2193.
Finally, the Authority proposes deletion of the following
definitions as unnecessary: Out of Competition, Program Effective Date,
and Racetrack Safety and Welfare Committee.
2015. Racehorse Epidemiology Database and Study
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act mandates that the
Authority, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, develop
and maintain a nationwide database of racehorse safety, performance,
health, and injury information for the purpose of conducting an
epidemiological study. 15 U.S.C. 3056(c)(3)(A). The Act further
provides that ``the Authority may require covered persons to collect
and submit to the database described in subparagraph (A) such
information as the Authority may require to further the goal of
increased racehorse welfare.'' Id. at (c)(3)(B). The Authority proposes
this rule in connection with its statutory mandate under the Act.
This proposed new rule identifies all sources of records and data
that will be collected by the Authority for purposes of developing the
nationwide database referenced in section 3056 of the Act. The majority
of sources identified in this rule are references to other existing
rules in the Racetrack Safety Rule under which the Authority is already
receiving pertinent information and do not contain new, separate
reporting obligations on Covered Persons. Paragraph (c), however, does
require, upon the written request of the Authority, Racetracks to
provide historical equine injury and fatality data for the previous 10
years from the date of the request. One commenter questioned whether
the Authority has the statutory authority to request information and
records that pre-date the Act.\30\ In response, the Authority states
that access to this historical information ``furthers the goal of
increased racehorse welfare'' as it will aid in the Authority's
research and understanding of the patterns and trends relative to
racehorse injuries and fatalities. Additionally, the information will
be used to initially develop the database which will expedite the
research process. Other commenters \31\ noted that some of the
information referenced in this rule is already being captured and
collected through other non-Authority sources, such as the InCompass
database. These commenters are correct and, where applicable, the
Authority does receive information directly from these third-party
sources, obviating the concern of duplicative reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Dr. Jeff Blea.
\31\ The Jockey Club, the Maryland Racing Commission, and
comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill
Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2100. Racetrack Accreditation
2101. General
Language in this rule concerning the adoption of best practices and
guidance by the Racetrack Safety Committee has been stricken as
unnecessary.
2110. Accreditation Process
2111. Interim and Provisional Accreditation
No significant modifications are being proposed with regard to this
rule; minor modifications to terms used have been made.
The Jockeys' Guild expressed concerns about the granting of
``interim accreditation'' to Racetracks prior to HISA performing an
assessment under Rule 2112. The Jockey Club noted that the delay could
result in unaddressed safety concerns for up to three years.\32\ The
Jockeys' Guild also expressed concerns that the automatic granting of
``interim Racetrack Safety Accreditation'' by the Authority, and the
length of time before the Authority is able to conduct an assessment of
the track, might allow safety concerns to go unaddressed.\33\ The
Authority notes that these comments do not address the modifications
and concern provisions that have already been approved. Regardless, if
safety concerns arise, the Authority may intervene by issuing a Notice
of Suspected or Actual Violation. In the case of very serious hazards,
provisional suspension under Rule 2117 also provides the Authority with
the ability to address safety concerns rapidly in the interest of
protecting Covered Horse and Riders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The Jockeys' Guild.
\33\ The Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24579]]
2112. Accreditation Assessment
Modifications are proposed in three paragraphs. Paragraph (a) is
amended to require a Racetrack to respond to questions and inquiries
posed by the Racetrack Safety Committee within a deadline established
by the Committee, rather than within 60 days. This provides more
flexibility in the time permitted to respond, in relation to the extent
and nature of the questions and inquiries posed.
In addition, paragraph (c) is amended to require a Racetrack's
response to a post-inspection report within 30 days, rather than 60
days. This change expedites the accreditation inspection and review
process and will result in more rapid remedial action taken to cure any
deficiencies in Racetrack operations or equipment. A commenter asked
whether there will be a response from the Authority indicating that a
Racetrack reporting submission has been received by the Authority.\34\
The Authority is currently developing an IT modality that will confirm
receipt of all submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Tom Robbins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Paragraph (d) is amended to include a new sentence that
permits the Racetrack Safety Committee to require a Racetrack, as a
condition of accreditation, ``to take any remedial or other action that
is consistent with the Authority's safety rules and Accreditation
standards established in the Rule 2100 Series and Rule 2200 Series.''
This provision provides greater flexibility in encouraging Racetracks
to meet the accreditation requirements expeditiously, as an alternative
to denying accreditation for non-compliance.
2113. Issuance of Accreditation
No significant changes are proposed for this rule. Minor changes to
the language of the Rule are proposed for clarity.
2114. Effective Periods of Accreditation
Rule 2114 in its current form establishes 3-year periods of
accreditation, which may be modified to 1 to 7 years if the Authority
determines that a modified period is consistent with the rules of
accreditation. No significant changes are proposed for this rule. A
``notwithstanding'' clause is included in paragraph (a) to make clear
that the 3-year period of accreditation is subject to the 1-to-7-year
terms set forth in paragraph (b). Other minor changes to the language
of the Rule are proposed for clarity.
2115. Racetrack Reporting
Rule 2115 establishes reporting requirements for Racetracks. A new
paragraph (a) provides more detail concerning annual reports to the
Authority by Racetracks; the rule explicitly requires Racetracks to
file a report within 30 days after the end of each race meeting, and,
by December 31 of each year, to complete a Racetrack Safety
Accreditation Audit. The audit is a key tool by which the Authority may
monitor a Racetrack's level of compliance with Authority rules.
An additional new provision, paragraph (g), requires Racetracks to
submit a certified report to the Authority within 30 days of the end of
each Race Meet. A commenter asked whether the information required in
the end of Race Meet report can be prescribed in the rule.\35\ The
Authority prefers the current language in the rule, which states that
the report shall be submitted ``in such form as the Authority may
prescribe.'' This provides greater flexibility, and the Authority will
outline in an appropriate form the precise information required, all of
which will pertain to Racetrack safety matters and requirements as set
forth in the rules of the Authority. Another commenter suggested that
the deadline for the report should be 60 days rather than 30 days.\36\
The Authority believes the 30-day requirement is appropriate and not
burdensome, and notes that the end of meet report consists only of data
reporting; no narrative composed by the Racetrack is required. The
sooner the information is provided to the Authority after the end of
the meet, the more likely it is to be accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Minnesota Racing Commission.
\36\ Tom Robbins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New proposed rules will require Racetracks to maintain a list of,
and contact information for, key personnel at the Racetrack. Racetracks
will also be required to authorize third party system providers who
collect information regarding Covered Persons, Covered Horses, and
Covered Racetracks to provide data upon request, and to authorize any
video replay or video service provider to provide to the Authority upon
request high-resolution video replays of Covered Horseraces at the
Racetrack. These new provisions will ensure the Authority may access
data relative to Covered Persons, Covered Horses, or Covered Horseraces
that is submitted by the Racetrack to the third-party system provider
(such as, fatality information submitted to the Equine Injury Database
or video replays to be used for injury and fatality review). These new
requirements will further the Authority's goal of increased racehorse
welfare and aid in making accreditation determinations.
Finally, new provisions in the rule permit the Authority to obtain
upon request information pertaining to accreditation or suspected
violations of Authority rules. Tracks are also made subject to on-site
inspection by the Authority at any time so that any suspected safety
violation can be promptly investigated and addressed.
All of these modifications refine the reporting requirements in
Rule 2115, so that the Authority possesses the information it needs to
review Racetrack compliance and make appropriate decisions concerning
Racetrack accreditation. The painstaking review of all aspects of
Racetrack operations are of vital importance in securing the health,
safety and welfare of Covered Horses and Covered Persons.
2116. Suspension and Revocation of Accreditation
Rule 2116 establishes the procedures for situations in which a
Racetrack is in material non-compliance with the Accreditation
requirements. In addition to stylistic changes, a new provision is
added which states that the Authority may consider all factors that it
deems important, including factors established in Rule 8360(e)(1)-(5).
Commenters suggested that the factors for material non-compliance
should be clearly established in the rules.\37\ The Authority prefers
to leave ``material non-compliance'' as an open term; the circumstances
under which a Racetrack might be in material non-compliance are many
and varied, and difficult to anticipate and articulate in their
entirety in a rule. In response, however, the Authority proposed new
language clarifying that the Authority shall consider all factors that
it deems appropriate, including the factors established in Rule
8360(e)(1)-(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar,
Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2117. Provisional Suspension of Racetrack Accreditation
Rule 2117, Provisional Suspension of Racetrack Accreditation, is a
new proposed rule. This provision permits the Authority to suspend
racing activity in a short period of time if ``the Authority has
reasonable grounds to believe that the conditions or operations of a
Racetrack present an imminent danger to the health, safety, or welfare
of Covered Horses or Riders arising from specific violations by the
Racetrack of
[[Page 24580]]
the Authority's Racetrack safety or accreditation rules.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Rule 2117(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule 2117 was distributed for public comment in July 2023.
Since that time, the Authority has received numerous comments and has
worked with industry stakeholders to address due process concerns that
were raised during the informal public comment period. This proposed
rule is the result of both collaboration with industry stakeholders and
the Authority's input. Under this rule, the Authority may issue a show-
cause notice concerning a provisional suspension of a Racetrack's
accreditation if the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that
the conditions or operations of the Racetrack present an imminent
danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Covered Horses or Riders
arising from specific violations by the Racetrack of the Authority's
Racetrack safety or accreditation rules. The show-cause notice will
include an itemization of the rules which the Racetrack is believed to
have violated, the corrective actions suggested to achieve compliance,
a request for a written response from the Racetrack, and a statement
indicating that the Racetrack may request a provisional hearing within
3 business days of receipt of the notice. Notably, the Racetrack's
accreditation would not be suspended during the time between receipt of
the show-cause notice and the provisional hearing.
The Racetrack is afforded significant procedural due process
protections under this rule; first at the provisional hearing stage
and, later, at the final hearing. For instance, if the Racetrack
requests a provisional hearing, the provisional hearing will be
promptly held within 3 business days of receipt of the Racetrack's
request for a hearing. The provisional hearing will be conducted by a
3-person panel consisting of 1 industry member of the Board, 1
independent member of the Board, and 1 member of the Arbitral Body
selected by the Chair of the Board. The sole issue to be determined at
the provisional hearing is whether the Racetrack's provisional
suspension of Accreditation shall go into immediate effect following
the provisional hearing, be stayed pending a final hearing under this
rule, or be withdrawn. The burden is on the Authority to demonstrate
good cause why the provisional suspension of the Racetrack's
accreditation should go into immediate effect or be stayed pending a
final adjudication. Within 7 business days of the conclusion of the
provisional hearing, the 3-person panel will issue a written decision
imposing an immediate provisional suspension of the Racetrack's
accreditation, staying the provisional suspension, or dismissing the
notice.
The Racetrack may seek prompt review of any decision rendered at
the provisional hearing by requesting a final hearing, which will take
place within 14 calendar days of the Racetrack's request for a final
hearing. The final hearing will be conducted by a quorum of the Board
and the 2 Board members who participated in the provisional hearing
will be precluded from participating in the final hearing. The final
hearing will be conducted pursuant to the procedural rules established
in Rules 8340(d) through (j), which provide for a full presentation of
evidence and place the burden on the Authority to demonstrate, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the Racetrack is in violation of
the Accreditation rules.
Within 7 business days of the conclusion of the final hearing, the
Board may (1) order that the Racetrack's accreditation be reinstated,
suspended, or revoked; (2) reinstate accreditation subject to any
requirements the Board deems necessary to address the specific safety
violations; and/or (3) impose a fine in an amount not to exceed
$50,000.
The outcome of the final hearing of the Authority will be
considered a final civil sanction subject to appeal and review in
accordance with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 3058.
2120. Accreditation Requirements
2121. Racetrack Risk Management Committee
The title of the Committee has been changed to Racetrack Risk
Management Committee. As noted in several comments, the previous title,
the Racetrack Safety and Welfare Committee, was sometimes confused with
the Racetrack Safety Committee established by the Act.
The Rule sets forth the composition of the Committee. Revisions are
proposed which rename several positions; the term ``Horsemen's
representative'' has been replaced by ``Owners' representative'' and
``Trainers' representative,'' as Owners and Trainers are often
collectively referred to as ``Horsemen.''
The Racetrack may alter the composition of the Racetrack Risk
Management Committee, if approved by the Racetrack Safety Committee.
This allows the Racetrack to adapt the structure of the Racetrack Risk
Management Committee to well-functioning structures already in place in
states such as California.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Prompted by a comment from the CHRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current rule specifies the responsibilities of the Racetrack
Risk Management Committee in paragraph (c); several modifications
clarify terminology and duties. New provisions require interviews of
witnesses to be conducted in the case of Human Injury, and to interview
Racetrack personnel when appropriate in the review of Catastrophic
Injuries and Equine Mortalities. In addition, the Rule expands upon
current language to specify that the Racetrack Risk Management
Committee must file a certified end of meet report, with attached
meeting minutes, within 60 days of the end of a race meet of fewer than
60 days (this is separate from the Racetrack's obligation to submit an
end of meet report 30 days after the meet). Quarterly reports are
required for race meets of 60 days or more. The Racetrack Safety
Committee will specify the contents of the post-meet report, in
response to a commenter who queried concerning the contents of the
report.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Minnesota Racing Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new paragraph (b)(2) clarifies that the Regulatory Veterinarian
shall chair the Racetrack Risk Management Committee, unless there is no
agreement between the Authority and the State Racing Commission. If
there is no agreement, a Lead Veterinarian shall be appointed by the
Racetrack and shall chair the Racetrack Risk Management Committee, and
the cost of this position will be funded by the Racetracks.
The purpose of the Racetrack Risk Management Committee is to
review, with the input of members from multiple disciplines,
information and occurrences relevant to equine and human safety. This
allows the Racetrack Risk Management Committee to take action to
improve safety at the Racetrack. The purpose of the Racetrack Risk
Management Committee is not to impose discipline upon Covered Persons,
but rather to facilitate the process of discussion, risk analysis,
education and implementation of strategies for injury prevention.
A commenter asked whether all of the members of the committee are
required to perform all of the responsibilities outlined in
2121(c).\41\ Another commenter expressed concern that provision was not
being made for small groups.\42\ As noted above, a Racetrack may alter
the composition of the committee upon approval of the Racetrack Safety
Committee. The
[[Page 24581]]
Authority further notes that the rule does not require the Safety
Director to perform all of the work of the Committee; the various
members of the Committee will perform much of the work. The role of the
Safety Director is to oversee the Committee's work to make sure that
the work is performed in a coordinated manner, and to provide
assistance and additional resources where necessary to ensure the tasks
of the Committee are thoroughly and efficiently performed. It is
anticipated that members of the Committee may perform as sub-groups to
assist in accomplishing the Committee's various duties and tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ HBPA.
\42\ CHRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter suggested that Starting Gate Persons and Track
Superintendents should be among those persons required to be
interviewed after a Catastrophic Injury or Equine Mortality.\43\ The
Authority notes that such interviews are covered by the rule, with
flexibility to adjust for individual cases; the rule currently requires
interviews when appropriate with ``Racetrack personnel.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The Breeders' Cup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters opined that an attending veterinarian should be a member
of the committee.\44\ The Authority believes the committee is best
served by the membership of the Regulatory Veterinarian or Association
Veterinarian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ THA, Dr. Scott Hay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2130. Required Safety Personnel
2131. Safety Director
Rule 2131 concerning the Safety Director is modified in several
provisions in addition to minor clarifications of terminology. The most
significant change is the new provision, establishing a new
responsibility for the Safety Director: ``(c)(4) Establishing a formal
protocol by which health, safety, and welfare issues are reported,
investigated, and resolved by the Racetrack. The protocol shall address
coordination between racetrack management, Veterinarians, safety
stewards, and Stewards, so that all persons involved have a clear
understanding of their roles and further action may be taken where
appropriate.'' This provision tasks the Safety Director with creating a
comprehensive protocol that systematizes the methods by which health,
safety and welfare issues are addressed and resolved. The provision
also requires that the protocol address vital issues concerning how the
various officials will cooperate in addressing issues. The protocol
ensures that officials may work together in a pre-determined and
coordinated way, rather than in an ad hoc manner with no consistent
approach.
Commenters have expressed concern that the Safety Director cannot
perform all of the duties set forth in the rule.\45\ The rule, however,
does not require the Safety Director to perform all of the work of the
Committee; the various members of the Committee will perform the work
in collaboration. The role of the Safety Director is to oversee the
Committee's work to make sure that the work is performed in a
coordinated manner, and to provide assistance and additional resources
where necessary to ensure the tasks of the Committee are thoroughly and
efficiently performed. In response to a comment expressing concern
about the Safety Director's oversight of Regulatory and Association
Veterinarians,\46\ the Authority emphasizes that the veterinarian's
prerogative and medical judgment of equine welfare issues will not be
limited or constrained by the Safety Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ The Jockeys' Guild and a comment jointly submitted by NYRA,
Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
\46\ This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar,
Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (c)(8) is modified to state that the Safety Director
shall be responsible for: ``(8) Report[ing] all equine injuries that
required equine ambulance assistance and fatalities to the Racetrack's
Risk Management Committee and the Authority within 72 hours of an
injury, and within 24 hours of a fatality[.]'' The provision, suggested
by a commenter,\47\ more precisely limits the reporting of equine
injuries to those that required ambulance assistance, rather than minor
injuries that do not require extensive medical care. The provision also
now requires that equine fatalities be reported to the Racetrack Risk
Management Committee and the Authority within 24 hours. The reporting
of equine fatalities is vital to ensure that Racetrack officials may
take prompt action to determine the cause of fatalities and take action
to mitigate the possibility of further injuries to Covered Horses on
Racetrack grounds. It is important to note that the reporting
requirement does not require the filing of a written report; verbal
notification satisfies the initial 24-hour reporting requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Tom Robbins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter asked whether the Safety Director will also be
responsible for emergency drills concerning, for example, weather-
related events.\48\ In response, the Authority notes that the Safety
Director is not charged with personally directing emergency drills, but
is charged with the oversight function of ensuring that the drills are
conducted pursuant to Rule 2161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Breeders' Cup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter urged that the Equine Injury Database be used for the
reporting of equine injuries within 24 hours of a fatality, and 72
hours of an injury.\49\ The veterinarians do not have to report to both
the Equine Injury Database and the Authority, provided the Racetracks
permit the Authority to access the Equine Injury Database. If the
Racetrack does not permit access, the reporting must be made directly
to the Authority in addition to the Equine Injury Database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The Jockey Club.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2132. Medical Director
There are several significant additions to Rule 2132. Rule 2132 is
modified with the following language: ``The Medical Director shall be
either a licensed physician, a board-certified athletic trainer, or an
individual qualified to perform the duties and responsibilities set
forth in this Rule with the assistance of the Authority's National
Medical Director.'' While the engagement of a licensed physician is
ideal, this is not possible at this time at some Racetracks. The rule
allows, for example, a qualified medical provider (such as a nurse
practitioner) to perform the duties of the Medical Director, with the
proviso that the Medical Director shall have the assistance of the
Authority's National Medical Director in performing the duties.
An additional significant provision is added to the duties of the
Medical Director. The provision states that the Medical Director shall:
``(c)(3) Require notification of Human Injuries during racing or
training to the Authority's National Medical Director within 1 hour of
transport of the individual(s) from the scene of the injury.'' This
rule will enhance the safety of Riders by ensuring that HISA's National
Medical Director is informed of Human Injuries very quickly, so that
the Medical Director can assist in providing any services needed by the
Rider or the medical responders. A commenter questioned whether 1 hour
was realistic, recommending 24 hours instead.\50\ The Authority
disagrees with this view, and notes that all the rule requires is
``notification,'' which can include verbal notification. No written
report or communication is required to satisfy the 1-hour requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Tom Robbins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An early draft of Rule 2132 implied that all human injuries be
reported
[[Page 24582]]
under the rule. Commenters noted,\51\ and the Authority agrees, that
the reporting of all human injuries that occur at a Racetrack is
impractical. The definition of Human Injuries was therefore modified to
limit Human Injuries to those injuries requiring medical attention and
that may restrict a Covered Person's current or future participation or
employment in racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Tom Robbins, HBPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the provision requiring the Racetracks to reimburse the
Authority for the costs associated with the employment of the Medical
Director, the clause that provides for the reimbursement to be based on
``total handle wagered in the applicable state in the prior calendar
year'' has been removed. This change is made to conform to substantive
changes in the Authority's Rule 8500 Series concerning the allocation
of costs.
A provision is modified to state that the Medical Director shall
``develop and implement a process for certifying a Jockey's fitness to
resume riding.'' This clarifies that the Medical Director is not
required to certify the Jockey's fitness to ride, but instead is
charged with the development of the certification process.
A provision is modified to require the reporting of Human Injuries
to the Racetrack Risk Management Committee and the Authority within 24
hours rather than the current requirement of 72 hours. This allows the
Racetrack Risk Management Committee and the Authority's National
Medical Director to review the factors contributing to the injury more
rapidly.
Finally, a provision is added that requires the Safety Director to
coordinate with the Authority's National Medical Director. This ensures
effective coordination between these two officials in addressing Human
Injuries.
2133. Stewards
In Rule 2133, paragraph (b) is amended to state: ``Unless the
Authority determines that the applicable individual is otherwise
qualified, to qualify for appointment as a Steward, the appointee shall
meet the experience, education, and examination requirements necessary
to be accredited by [the Racing Officials Accreditation Program
(``ROAP''].''
A commenter expressed opposition to the amended introduction,
stating that it might undermine standards of racing experience.\52\ The
Authority understands the need for competent and experienced Stewards,
and will carefully consider any individual who is not accredited by
ROAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Dan Fick and ROAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter suggested that the term ``or contracted with'' should
be added to Rule 2133(c), which concerns the contractual agreements
entered into by the Authority and State Racing Commissions.\53\ This
change was made, so that Rule 2133(c) now reads as follows: ``The
requirements of Rule 2133 for any Steward employed by or contracted
with a State Racing Commission are subject to the applicable State
Racing Commission electing to enter into an agreement with the
Authority.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ CHRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2134. Regulatory Veterinarian
Rule 2134 sets forth the requirements and duties concerning
Regulatory Veterinarians at the Racetrack. A new proposed rule is added
as paragraph (a) which requires Racetracks to ensure that that no fewer
than 2 Regulatory Veterinarians (as defined in Rule 1020 and excluding
test barn veterinarians) are present at the Racetrack during all live
racing. Upon a request and a showing of undue hardship by the
Racetrack, the Racetrack Safety Committee may permit a Racetrack to
have 1 Regulatory Veterinarian present at the Racetrack during all live
racing. Some commenters observed that the shortage of veterinarians
nationwide will make it difficult for Racetracks to have 2 Regulatory
Veterinarians present at the track.\54\ The Authority recognizes that a
shortage exists, and in response to these concerns has added a
provision allowing the Racetrack Safety Committee to permit a Racetrack
to have 1 Regulatory Veterinarian present at the Racetrack upon a
showing of undue hardship. The Racetrack Safety Committee will
scrutinize any such request very carefully, and always with the safety
of Covered Horses firmly in mind.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ ROAP, Washington Horse Racing Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters questioned how a Racetrack can be charged with
controlling the number of Regulatory Veterinarians on the grounds of
the Racetrack.\55\ In response, the Authority notes that Racetracks are
permitted (and encouraged) to appoint a veterinarian to supplement the
duties of the Regulatory Veterinarians and to comply with the
requirement in proposed Rule 2134(a). Such veterinarians are referred
to as ``Lead Veterinarians'' and have the same duties, obligations, and
responsibilities of the Regulatory Veterinarians under these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ ROAP, Mike Hopkins, Joe Wilson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this rule are modified to clarify that
the Regulatory Veterinarians may be contracted or appointed by a State
Racing Commission or the Authority, and that Regulatory Veterinarians
need only be licensed to practice in the state in which the Regulatory
Veterinarian is performing the duties established under the rule, if
required in the applicable jurisdiction. A number of commenters
expressed viewpoints concerning proposed amendments to this rule,
weighing in favor of retaining the requirement that Regulatory
Veterinarians must be licensed to practice in the state in which they
perform their regulatory duties. The Rule is amended for greater
flexibility in light of the nationwide veterinary shortage and
accommodates the possibility that a jurisdiction might not require the
Regulatory Veterinarians to be licensed by the state in which they
perform regulatory duties, in which case no license is required. Of
course, if the applicable jurisdiction requires the veterinarian to be
licensed in the jurisdiction, this rule does not alter that
requirement.
Paragraph (b)(4) is amended to clarify that the Regulatory
Veterinarian is restricted from prescribing ``medications'' for any
Covered Horse within the applicable jurisdiction except in cases of
emergency, accident, or injury. A comment had noted that Regulatory
Veterinarians must be able to prescribe diagnostics; the term
``medications'' more precisely states the activity intended to be
prohibited.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar,
Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (c) contains changes to the provisions concerning the
appointment of a Lead Veterinarian. In those jurisdictions where the
state racing commission does not elect to enter into an agreement with
the Authority to establish a Regulatory Veterinarian, the Racetrack is
required to appoint a Lead Veterinarian to carry out the duties,
obligations, and responsibilities of the Regulatory Veterinarian under
the rules. New language is added to this rule to clarify that even in
jurisdictions where the applicable state racing commission does elect
to enter into an agreement with the Authority to establish a Regulatory
Veterinarian, the Racetrack may still appoint a Veterinarian(s) to
serve as the Lead Veterinarian(s) to supplement the duties of the
Regulatory Veterinarian(s) and to comply with the requirements in Rule
2134(a). In both cases, the appointment of the Lead
[[Page 24583]]
Veterinarian(s) is subject to the Racetrack Safety Committee's
approval.
A comment stated that the sharing of a Lead Veterinarian may be
impractical in some states in which racing dates overlap.\57\ In
response, the Authority notes that nothing in the rule requires
Racetracks within a state to share a Lead Veterinarian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar,
Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2135. Responsibilities and Duties of Regulatory Veterinarian
Paragraph (a)(5) of this rule is revised to clarify that the
Stewards retain the authority to scratch horses, upon receiving
notification from the Regulatory Veterinarian that the horse is
injured, ill, otherwise unable to compete due to a medical or health
related condition, or poses a hazard to other horses or racing
participants. This codifies pre-existing industry practice and is in
accord with the preference of several commenters who opined that the
Stewards should retain the ultimate authority to scratch horses.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ ROAP, Tom Robbins, ROCO, Washington Horse Racing
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a)(7) is revised to clarify that, notwithstanding Rule
2220 (specifying that only Attending Veterinarians may attend to
Covered Horses at any location under the jurisdiction of the State
Racing Commission), a Regulatory Veterinarian may provide emergency
medical care and effect case transfer to the Attending Veterinarian.
This is necessary for the health and safety of Covered Horses. The
addition of ``training'' is intended to cover emergency situations
where an Attending Veterinarian is not present on the Racetrack
grounds.
Paragraph (a)(9) is amended to state that the Regulatory
Veterinarian must ``report to the Safety Director and the Authority
within 24 hours the names of all Covered Horses who are euthanized or
which otherwise die at the meeting and the reasons therefor.'' The
addition of ``and the Authority within 24 hours'' is intended to
facilitate prompt notice to the Authority of potentially emerging
safety situations.
A commenter suggested that the reference to the Safety Director
should be deleted from this rule.\59\ The Authority prefers to retain
the reference to the Safety Director because regular communication of
safety and welfare issues with the Authority is expected and is in the
best interest of equine safety and welfare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 1 S/T Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a)(10) is modified as follows: ``collaborate with the
Safety Director, Chief Veterinarian of the State Department of
Agriculture (or comparable State government official), Equine Disease
Communication Center (EDCC), and other regulatory agencies to take
measures to control communicable or reportable equine diseases.'' This
provision was developed while considering a comment that suggested the
inclusion of the ``comparable State government officials'' phrase,
since states vary as to the specific state officials responsible for
the communicable diseases.
Paragraph (b) is amended to clarify that a Regulatory Veterinarian
may access Covered Horses on Racetrack grounds, perform inspections of
Covered Horses, observe Covered Horses during training activities, and
place a Covered Horse on the Veterinarians' List. This codifies pre-
existing industry measures intended to reduce the number of injured or
at-risk horses participating in racing activities.
Paragraph (c) is modified to permit the Authority to retain
additional veterinarians if it determines that the Regulatory
Veterinarian identified in the agreement with the Authority requires
additional assistance to perform the regulatory duties set out under
these rules. The modification is necessary to address situations where
a vacancy can be difficult to fill, especially as a stop gap measure,
and the Authority may be able to deploy additional veterinary personnel
in the short term.
Paragraph (d) is modified to clarify that the Regulatory
Veterinarian identified in the agreement with the Authority or, if
there is no Regulatory Veterinarian, the Lead Veterinarian has
jurisdiction over all veterinarians within the grounds of the
Racetrack. A commenter noted that jurisdiction over the Attending
Veterinarian should be vested in the Association Veterinarian where
there is no Regulatory Veterinarian filing such as role, as in the
state of Florida.\60\ In response, the Authority states that the
Racetrack can appoint the Association Veterinarian as a Lead
Veterinarian, which obviates the concern raised in this comment.
However, only the Regulatory Veterinarian may review and consult with
the Stewards and State Racing Commission regarding licensing
applications under paragraph (d) of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 1 S/T Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2136. Racetrack Safety Officer
Rule 2136 sets out the duties of the Racetrack Safety Officer. This
rule contains minor modifications. The rule in paragraph (b) specifies
the duties the Safety Officer must carry out, and modifies the
prefatory sentence as follows: ``The Safety Officer or the Safety
Officer's designee shall. . . .'' This phrase referring to the Safety
Officer's designee is added to make clear that the Safety Officer may
designate other individuals to assist in the performance of the
specified duties. This addition is in response to concerns expressed by
a commenter that the Safety Officer's duties are too expansive.\61\
Under the modified rule, the Safety Officer may enlist assistance in
the performance of the prescribed duties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of these duties, as set forth in paragraph (b)(5), is modified
to state that the Safety Officer shall monitor ambulance and medical
personnel protocols for Covered Horses and Riders in cooperation with
the Medical Director. This addition is made to emphasize that the
Safety Officer will monitor protocols in conjunction with, and with the
benefit of, the medical knowledge and expertise of the Medical
Director.
Finally, the rule is modified in (b)(8) to specify that the Safety
Officer will conduct ``HISA registration checks,'' rather than
``license checks;'' the latter term is more applicable to State Racing
Commission licenses, whereas registration is a function of the
Authority under the Rule 9000 Series.
A commenter observed that the Safety Officer should ``either
participate in the creation of or be the sole individual to draft
standard operating protocols for racetrack safety and equine welfare.''
\62\ The Safety Director is charged with the development of the
protocols pursuant to Rule 2131(c)(4), but the Safety Officer under
Rule 2136(b)(13) may make recommendations to Racetrack management and
officials to ensure the safety and welfare of Covered Horses and
Riders. The Safety Officer may certainly make recommendations
concerning the protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Jeanne Schnell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2137. Horseshoe Inspector; 2138. Responsibilities and Duties of
Horseshoe Inspector; 2139. Horseshoe Inspections
The Authority proposes a set of three new rules aimed at reducing
equine injuries and riding-related incidents attributable to
noncompliant horseshoes. The first rule, Rule 2137, establishes a
requirement on Racetracks (or State Racing Commissions where the
applicable State Racing Commission elects to enter into an agreement
with the Authority), to employ or contract
[[Page 24584]]
with a Horseshoe Inspector (defined in Rule 2010) to perform the duties
and responsibilities specified in Rule 2138. The Authority believes it
is important to have a designated individual at each Racetrack
responsible for inspecting horseshoes and ensuring compliance with the
Authority's rules. Not all Racetracks currently have an individual who
is solely responsible for inspecting horseshoes prior to racing.
Rule 2137 was originally circulated for informal industry comment
in April 2023. That version of the rule required the Horseshoe
Inspector to be licensed by the State Racing Commission. The Authority
received a comment in response to this rule, noting that this is not a
position which is licensed by State Racing Commissions.\63\ The
Authority believes that it is likely that the position will require
licensure but has revised this rule to only require licensing if such
licensing is required in the applicable jurisdiction. In addition to
licensing, this rule requires the Horseshoe Inspector to be
knowledgeable of matters pertaining to hooves, horseshoes, and the
Authority's rules pertaining to these subjects. The rule also includes
a continuing education requirement for Horseshoe Inspectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ HBPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second rule, Rule 2138, sets out the specific responsibilities
and duties of the Horseshoe Inspector--that is, conducting inspections
of horseshoes and other orthotics on all Covered Horses entered in a
Covered Race on Race Day and notifying the Stewards of any Covered
Horse that is shod with horseshoes that are not compliant with the
Authority's rules. The rule instructs the Horseshoe Inspector to
perform additional inspections if requested by the Steward. Involving
Stewards in this process provides an additional safeguard as they have
the authority to scratch a Covered Horse from a race. Reducing the
number of Covered Horses competing with noncompliant shoes will lead to
fewer Racetrack incidents and injuries and enhance the overall safety
of Covered Riders and Covered Horses.
Finally, Rule 2139 contains the process for pre-race horseshoe
inspections. The rule specifies that the trainer of each Covered Horse
must present the Covered Horse for inspection on the day of the race
and that the Horseshoe Inspector's inspection must include, at a
minimum, identification of the Covered Horse and examination of the
horseshoe and other orthotics and documentation of features relating to
a violation of horseshoe rules of the Authority. If, prior to starting
a Race, the Horseshoe Inspector is unable to make a determination, or
determines that a Covered Horse is wearing non-compliant horseshoes,
the Horseshoe Inspector shall notify the Stewards prior to the Covered
Horse leaving the paddock. Again, this measure ensures that the
Stewards are notified of Covered Horses that should not be competing
and can take the appropriate steps to remove the horse from the race.
Intervention on the part of the Horseshoe Inspector or Steward has the
potential to prevent or reduce the number of incidents and injuries
associated with the use of shoes that are not compliant with the
Authority's rules.
2140. Racehorse Inspections and Monitoring
2141. Veterinary Inspections
Rule 2141 establishes that Veterinary inspections shall be
performed by the Regulatory Veterinarians on all Covered Horses entered
in a Race, and that such inspections shall include the items listed in
Rule 2142. The current rule specifies that if the Regulatory
Veterinarian determines that a Covered Horse is unfit for competition,
or if the Regulatory Veterinarian is unable to make a determination of
racing soundness, the Regulatory Veterinarian shall have the
unconditional authority to scratch the Covered Horse from the race, and
shall notify the Stewards that the Covered Horse shall be scratched.
The rule is modified in paragraph (a) to change the phrase ``unfit
for competition'' to ``unsound for competition,'' because the word
``unsound'' is a more holistic veterinary term that embraces a wider
range of conditions that could potentially compromise the horse's
safety and welfare. In addition, the rule is modified to state that if
the Regulatory Veterinarian determines that the Covered Horse should be
scratched for the specified reasons articulated in the rule, the
Regulatory Veterinarian shall notify the Stewards that the horse shall
be scratched, and the Stewards shall then scratch the horse from the
race. This change was suggested and supported by commenters,\64\
because it accords with existing state racing commission rules which
provide only the Stewards with the authority to scratch a horse from a
race.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Tom Robbins, ROCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2142. Assessment of Racing Soundness
Rule 2142 details the various reports, inspections and procedures
that promote equine welfare and safety. A commenter suggested the
removal of a provision in the modified rule as originally drafted that
required the Layoff Report to be submitted not less than 30 days prior
to entry.\65\ The Racetrack Safety Committee considered this suggestion
and removed the provision; the committee concluded that the Racetrack
entry schedule (under which entries routinely close several days in
advance of the race) provides adequate time for the Regulatory
Veterinarian to review the lay-off reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Gary Palmisano.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter asked whether the Regulatory Veterinarian should
be required to sign off on the horse prior to entry.\66\ The California
rule requires an additional regulatory inspection. The intent of the
rule is to mirror more closely that in place in the Mid-Atlantic
region, which is to require that the information be made available to
the Regulatory Veterinarian to review. The intent is not to require an
additional pre-entry regulatory inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Tom Robbins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning paragraph 2142(b), which governs post-entry screening,
the modification requires Layoff Reports to be reviewed (in accord with
the new provision concerning Layoff Reports in paragraph (a)). The
modification also adds a sentence which states: ``Additional physical
inspection and observation in motion may be performed by the Regulatory
Veterinarian.'' This addition makes clear that the Regulatory
Veterinarian may exercise the discretion to expand the inspection as
needed to ensure the safety and well-being of the horse under
inspection. At the suggestion of commenters,\67\ the Authority removed
a provision that required the Racetrack Safety Committee to approve any
additional inspection. This allows the Regulatory Veterinarian to
exercise immediate discretion according to the Regulatory
Veterinarian's professional judgement concerning the horse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland,
Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters requested that the Authority develop a reporting form
that will provide the medical history of all horses entered, to aid in
the review of the last 30 days of medical history as required in the
current rule.\68\ The Authority agrees and is working on developing the
form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland,
Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter asked whether hindlimbs should be included in the
current requirement that digital
[[Page 24585]]
palpation be performed on forelimbs.\69\ The Racetrack Safety Committee
will consider this proposed requirement in future rulemaking. Nothing
in the proposed rule prohibits a Regulatory Veterinarian from palpating
hindlimbs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Tom Robbins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current rule in paragraph (b)(3) requires that a report
summarizing the results of pre-race inspections shall be submitted to
the Authority on the day of the inspection. A commenter suggested that
the Responsible Person be provided a copy of the report immediately in
the event of a scratch by the Regulatory Veterinarian, so that all
parties are kept informed as to the horses' condition.\70\ The
Authority will consider this suggestion in future rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ THA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A minor modification is made to the current rule which requires
that a Covered Horse be presented for inspection with bandages removed,
and with legs in clean and dry condition. The current rule specifies
that Covered Horses ``may not be placed in ice,'' to which the
modification adds the clarifying language that the horse may not be
placed in ice ``until the Regulatory Veterinarian has completed the
veterinary inspection.'' This clarification is made in response to
inquiries concerning the meaning of the rule. The rule makes clear that
the practice is permitted once the regulatory inspection is complete.
With regard to various reporting requirements in various portions
of the rule, a comment suggested that reporting be accomplished through
InCompass, for the sake of efficiency.\71\ Currently, the Authority is
encouraging Racetracks to provide the Authority with access to their
InCompass Equine Examination modules so that Regulatory Veterinarians
do not have to report to both the Authority and InCompass. Under
proposed Rule 2115(d), Racetracks will be required to authorize third-
party system providers to provide this type of information directly to
the Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar,
Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2143. Racehorse Monitoring
Rule 2143 provides the procedures by which necessary vaccinations
of Covered Horses are monitored. This is very important in the
prevention or mitigation of the transmission of infectious diseases,
which benefits the health and safety of Covered Horses. Paragraph (a)
of the rule is modified to specify that the paragraph applies to all
horses entering Racetrack grounds ``directly from any location or
facility other than a Designated Equine Facility or licensed racing
facility within the same state as the receiving Racetrack.'' (The new
proposed Rule 2144 establishes the concept of Designated Equine
Facilities and will be discussed further under Rule 2144 below). The
purpose of this exemption for Designated Equine Facilities and licensed
racing facilities within the same state as the receiving Racetrack is
to reduce the compliance burden on Responsible Persons and Attending
Veterinarians when horses are stabled at auxiliary training centers
where the risk of infectious disease transmission is deemed low.
The rule is also modified to require a ``current'' health
certificate; the modification is necessary to clarify questions as to
whether horses would be accepted from these facilities without any
health certificate at all.
The rule is modified at the suggestion of a commenter \72\ to
permit the acceptance of a current health certificate or, in the
alternative, ``other health documentation sufficient for importation to
the United States and approved by the [United States Department of
Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (``USDA-
APHIS'')] representatives.'' This phrase is added because horses at
times arrive to race in the United States from foreign countries and
are under USDA-APHIS surveillance, which includes surveillance for
signs of infectious disease. This surveillance is documented and is
considered to sufficiently mitigate the risk of infectious disease
transmission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Breeders' Cup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the rule is modified to impose the requirements upon
``Pony Horses'' as well as Covered Horses, because Pony Horses often
travel with, are stabled next to, and work in close proximity to
Covered Horses. As such, transmission of infectious disease is
increased. Extending the requirement to Pony Horses will mitigate that
risk.
Concerning current Rule 2143(a)(1), which requires a certificate of
veterinary inspection (``CVI'') within the prior 5 days, or fewer days
if high risk situations dictate, a commenter opined that ``5-day health
certificates do not work in many situations; consider something
intrastate or go back to 30 days.'' \73\ In response, the Authority
notes that the Designated Equine Facility was a compromise created to
reduce the compliance burden of Rule 2143(a)(1) in those situations
deemed to be at lower risk for transmission of infectious disease while
still affording a reasonable level of protection to Racetracks and
stakeholders who have a shared financial interest in keeping the stable
area and racing program safeguarded from infectious disease outbreak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ HBPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter opined that there ``should be explicit language
allowing the racetrack to require in-state horses to provide a CVI in
the face of an outbreak.'' \74\ In response, the Authority replies that
there is nothing in the rule that would prohibit this, and notes that
the requirement was implemented by several Racetracks in 2023 during
periods of heightened infectious disease concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter expressed frustration with the varying health
certificate rules in different jurisdictions.\75\ The Authority
understands the issue, but adopting, for example, a uniform flu-rhino
requirement would eliminate the ability of Racetracks and state
Departments of Agriculture to respond with shorter vaccination window
requirements in high-risk situations. These entities believe this
flexibility is needed to manage outbreaks of disease of economic
importance to protect the equine industry at large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Dr. Scott Hay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new paragraph (b) is included in Rule 2143, which states as
follows: ``(b) The applicable Racetrack shall maintain records that
document that the requirements of Rule 2143(a) have been satisfied for
each Covered Horse entering racetrack grounds. Such records shall be
subject to inspection and audit by the Authority.'' This provision is
added in response to stakeholder requests for clarification about whose
responsibility it is to maintain these records beyond the time of entry
into the stable gate.
A commenter asked: ``Is the racetrack responsible for maintaining
records of all vaccinations or is the trainer themselves? Isn't the
trainer responsible for adding them to each individual horse record
through HISA?'' \76\ In response, the Authority notes that Rule 2143
does not relieve the Responsible Person from the duty to keep the
vaccines current in the horse's health record in the HISA portal. The
Racetrack, in turn, is responsible for maintaining records that
document that the horse's vaccination status was verified when the
horse entered the Racetrack grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Minnesota Racing Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new paragraph (c) is added which states as follows:
[[Page 24586]]
(c) Exemption for vaccination requirements. Covered Horses that are
imported to the United States to participate in a specific race or
races or to enter race training in the United States may, upon
application to the Authority, be exempted from the vaccination
requirements, with the exception of requirements for Influenza and
Rhinopneumonitis, for the following periods:
(1) if the Covered Horse is leaving the United States immediately
following the specific race or races, then for the period of USDA
temporary importation or transit to an approved USDA location, or
(2) if the Covered Horse is remaining in the United States, then
for the period of 14 days following the specific race or races, or from
arrival at a Racetrack, whichever is longer.
The proposed provision governs the health certificate rules for
imported horses, with certain exemptions from vaccine requirements as
specified. This takes into account the fact that certain vaccines are
not available in some foreign nations, and a temporary exemption
process in the rule provides a mechanism by which imported horses enter
the U.S. Department of Agriculture quarantine facility; the rule
provides a window of time within which any vaccines that the horse
lacks can be administered once the horse arrives at the Racetrack. A
commenter noted: ``Just want to make sure that should such foreign
horses stay beyond 14 days if okay. Del Mar had a Japanese horse stay
beyond 14 days post Breeders' Cup that remained under USDA observation/
isolation before shipping to run In Hong Kong.'' \77\ In response, the
Authority notes that extensions may be granted by the Racetrack Safety
Committee on a case-by-case basis upon consideration of the
circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ Tom Robbins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters opined that the vaccination exemption for imported
horses should not include EHV/EIV.\78\ The Authority agrees, and the
rule was changed accordingly. This is because Equine Influenza and
Equine Rhinopneumonitis are the two respiratory diseases of greatest
concern in racehorses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 1/ST Racing and a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del
Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of the current rule (now restyled as
paragraphs (d) and (e)), enumerate the items of information that must
be submitted to the Authority by the Racetrack with respect to each
Covered Horse on its grounds, and each Covered Horse leaving its
grounds. This rule is modified to state in each case that the
information must only be provided ``upon request by the Authority.''
This change is made to clarify that Racetracks are not required to
upload this detailed information on a daily basis to the Authority.
2144. Designated Equine Facility
A new proposed Rule 2144 will establish a procedure by which
Racetracks may seek to designate equine facilities as Designated Equine
Facilities under the rules. The reason for the adoption of this rule is
to balance the interest in safeguarding the equine population from
infectious disease outbreak with the compliance burden imposed by a
health certificate requirement.
The proposed rule states in full:
(a) To qualify an equine facility as a Designated Equine Facility,
the applicable Racetrack shall certify to the Authority in such form as
the Authority may prescribe that it has reviewed and determined that
the biosecurity protocols and procedures of the Designated Equine
Facility are consistent with the biosecurity protocols and procedures
of the Racetrack.
(b) The applicable Racetrack shall maintain records that document
that the requirements of Rule 2144(a) have been satisfied for each
Designated Equine Facility, including but not limited to the written
biosecurity protocols and procedures of the Designated Equine Facility.
Such records shall be subject to inspection and audit by the Authority.
In essence, the rule allows Racetracks to designate certain
facilities as exempt from specified health certificate requirements, on
the condition that the Racetrack certifies to the Authority that it has
confirmed that the biosecurity protocols at the facility are consistent
with those at the Racetrack.
A commenter maintained that if the Authority chooses ``to certify
Designated Training Facilities that are not owned by a racetrack, [the
Authority] should be responsible for certifying their biosecurity
protocols and oversight of compliance.'' \79\ The commenter further
asserted that ``[a]s an independent entity, the racetrack has no
authority over their operations or right of entry.'' \80\ In response,
the Authority notes that it will not be certifying Designated Equine
Facilities, though it will, as part of a Racetrack's Accreditation
process, review the records referenced in paragraph (b) of this rule.
The risk assessment and Designation determination is left to the
Racetrack, and Racetracks are free to require 5-day health certificates
(or lesser, in high-risk situations) for horses coming from any
property at any time. A commenter stated: ``Please note, not all
training facilities are affiliated with Covered Racetracks. Will HISA
be recognizing and allowing horses to run off of training facilities
that are not affiliated or designated by Covered Racetracks? Regardless
if the training facility is affiliated with a Racetrack or if it is
independent operation, there are certain safety precautions and
protocols that must be adhered to, similar to a Racetrack.
Additionally, the Authority should be reviewing and approving all
protocols and procedures of the training facilities, and not just those
pertaining to the biosecurity.'' \81\ In response, the Authority notes
that the Racetrack Safety Committee considered the risk assessment with
regard to nearby, intrastate facilities was best left to the Racetrack
operators whose familiarity with the local landscape and ability to
respond quickly to emerging diseases exceeds that of the Authority. The
alternative was to keep the original 5-day health certificate intact
for all horses coming from off-site, and the Racetrack Safety Committee
felt the creation of the Designated Equine Facility was a reasonable
compromise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar,
Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing. A
previous version of this proposed rule referred to the facilities
contemplated in this rule as ``Designated Training Facilities.''
\80\ Id.
\81\ The Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter stated: ``Designated Training Facilities should
be subject to their own accreditation process, tailored to that
particular circumstance. As the Racetrack Safety and Antidoping and
Medication Control Programs continue to develop, it is very likely that
owners and trainers will relocate their Covered Horses to such
facilities in order to avoid the increased protocols being observed on
Racetrack grounds. This calls for regulation of such facilities in
greater depth which will, in turn, bring with it increased levels of
safety and integrity protections while also providing further sources
of data and information for the Authority's programs.'' \82\ In
response, the Authority notes the intent of the comment, and does not
disagree in principle. However, the comment does not appear to be
directly relevant to the creation of a compromise proposed solution to
the requirement of a 5-day health certificate in certain situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ The Jockey Club.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24587]]
2150. Racetrack and Racing Surface Monitoring and Maintenance
2151. Data Collection, Recordkeeping and Submission
The Authority is proposing minor clarifying language to this rule.
2152. Testing Methods
The Authority is not proposing any modifications to this rule.
2153. Racetrack Facilities
Rule 2153 is modified with the addition of the following
requirement in paragraph (b)(2): ``The top of the inner and outer rails
on dirt and turf courses must be at least 40 inches but not more than
50 inches above the top of the race surface.''
Commenters expressed concerns about the reasonable allowances for
variations in rail height.\83\ The Authority believes that the 10-inch
span for compliance with the top inner and outer rails on dirt and turf
courses provides considerable latitude for variation. In response to a
comment concerning the sources of information concerning rail
height,\84\ the Authority states that it consulted extensively with
experienced racetrack superintendents in specifying the appropriate
dimensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland,
Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
\84\ Mike Hopkins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter expressed the view that more precise specifications
concerning metrics, measurement devices, and time and space intervals
should be prescribed in the rule.\85\ The Authority will be considering
all requirements in the course of its ongoing study and analysis of
Racetrack facility requirements and their relationship to equine and
rider safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ CHRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A current provision under new paragraph (d)(2) requires protective
padding on starting gates; the modification adds Riders and Starting
Gate Persons to the persons whose safety is to be ensured. This
addition is made to ensure that the specific safety requirements of
these persons be considered when addressing padding requirements.
Commenters asked whether there should be a requirement for backup
starting gate batteries on Racetrack grounds.\86\ The Authority's rule
requires a functioning starting gate; track management is given the
latitude to determine how that shall be accomplished, whether by using
backup batteries or other functionalities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland,
Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing; Breeders Cup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A modification of the paragraph clarifies the requirement that the
Racetracks have in place a written plan for the removal of the starting
gate after the start of each Race in a safe and timely manner. The
modification will also require the plan to be reviewed annually. This
further enhances the safety of starting gate operation and procedures.
An important new modification now states: ``(8) A Racetrack shall
ensure there is at least 1 Starting Gate Person present for each
Covered Horse starting in a Covered Horserace.'' Although some
commenters expressed concern about complying with the requirement,\87\
the requirement is a vital component of ensuring the safety of all
persons working at the starting gate.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland,
Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing; Mike Hopkins.
\88\ This new language was suggested by the Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A new rule is added stating as follows: (f) The Racetrack shall
provide a suitable area for jogging claimed horses in or near the Test
Barn or, if approved by the Authority, a secured area used for claimed
horse exams. The jogging area shall be of sufficient length to jog the
claimed horse in hand in a straight line of not fewer than 5 strides
and have consistent, firm, and level footing, and shall be out of the
view of persons not authorized in the Test Barn or secured area. The
purpose of the rule is to provide adequate space for the jogging of
claimed horses. The ``out-of-view requirement'' is a component of
maintaining the integrity of the examination.
A commenter expressed the view that the emergency warning system
should be more specifically defined in Rule 2153(d)(1) of the current
rule (now restyled as paragraph (e)(1)).\89\ The Authority requires an
emergency warning system to be in place, but the rule properly allows
Racetracks the discretion to conform to the rule requirements as local
track conditions dictate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ The Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2154. Racetrack Surface Monitoring
In addition to minor terminological changes, the language in Rule
2154(b) is modified to more clearly state that Racetracks shall perform
pre-meet inspections on surfaces; the current language does not specify
the person or entity charged with performing the inspections.
Rule 2154(d) is modified to explicitly state that the surface
equipment inventory, surface maintenance logs, and surface material
addition or renovation logs specified in the current rule are to be
documented daily and uploaded weekly by the Racetrack to an electronic
database designated by the Authority; the current language does not
make clear to whom the information is submitted, and the rule will now
establish the timing of the documentation and upload requirements,
rather than leaving this unspecified.
At the suggestion of commenters,\90\ the words ``and speed'' are
added to the specified contents of the daily surface maintenance logs
addressed in Rule 2154(d)(1). Additionally, the words ``material
specifications'' are added to the documentation requirements concerning
additions to surfaces set forth in Rule 2154(d)(2). These are minor
modifications intended to ensure that all important informational items
are included within the requirements of these rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Dan Fick and ROAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2160. Emergency Preparedness
2161. Emergency Drills
Rule 2161 governing emergency drills is modified to require
emergency protocols to be reviewed periodically during each Race Meet,
in addition to prior to the Race Meet as required under the current
rule. Modifications also add Starting Gate Person injury and medical
emergencies to the list of emergencies to be included in the protocols,
and the term ``Jockey'' is deleted in favor of the term ``Rider'' in
two provisions, widening the ambit of the injury scenarios that must be
anticipated and included in the protocols. These modifications will
benefit Covered Horses and Riders by enhancing a Racetrack's response
to the emergencies specified in the rule.
2162. Catastrophic Injury
Rule 2162 concerning Catastrophic Injury is modified with minor
changes in terminology. A modification deletes a provision that
currently requires communication to the public to be a component of the
protocols required in the rule. The need for communication is difficult
to specify when Racetracks are responding to an emergency, and may have
little information to provide until the situation is assessed.
2163. Fire Safety
This rule is unchanged.
2164. Hazardous Weather
Rule 2164 is modified to include a new provision requiring
Racetracks to
[[Page 24588]]
comply with State Racing Commission rules governing the delay or
cancellation of races due to inclement weather, extreme heat, extreme
cold, lightning or other hazardous racing conditions. In the absence of
state rules, Racetracks are required, in conjunction with the
Racetrack's Stewards, Jockeys, and Horsemen, to develop Racetrack-
specific protocols for the delay or cancellation of races due to
inclement weather, extreme heat, extreme cold, lightning or other
hazardous racing conditions. The terms ``extreme heat'' and ``extreme
cold'' were added at the suggestion of a commenter to the list of
environmental conditions that must be addressed in the hazardous
weather protocols that are developed under the rule.\91\ The terms
cover extremes of weather that are prevalent at some Racetracks. In
addition, new provisions are added to provide a structured method by
which Air Quality Index may lead to a cessation of racing. Air quality
is an important consideration in preserving the health and safety of
Covered Horses and Riders. The Authority will consider in future
rulemaking suggested provisions provided by a commenter concerning
lightning protocols.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ ROCO.
\92\ The Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2165. Infectious Disease Management
Rule 2165 is largely unchanged, except for the modification of the
word ``symptoms'' to ``signs'' in paragraph (b). A particular condition
of a Covered Horse may be difficult initially to identify as symptom of
a particular infectious disease. ``Signs'' refers only to an observed
physical condition or behavior. The Authority is also proposing a
modification to paragraph (d) to expand the reporting requirements in
the event of a disease outbreak at the Racetrack. The proposed
modification will now require reporting to the Authority in addition to
the applicable state official.
2166. Human Ambulance Support
The Authority proposes several modifications to its human ambulance
rule. These modifications were the subject of considerable debate and
discussion, and this revised rule has undergone numerous iterations in
response to important and thoughtful comments submitted by industry
stakeholders over the last few months. All of the proposed changes are
intended to improve the efficiency and speed of the medical response to
an on-track riding incident, which, in turn, improves the health and
safety of all racing participants, including Covered Persons and
Covered Horses.
A new proposed rule is added as paragraph (a), which will require
Racetracks to ensure that no fewer than 2 properly staffed and equipped
Advanced Life Support (``ALS'') ambulances or ALS adapted vehicles are
present at the Racetrack during training and racing hours. This is in
accord with a comment submitted by the Jockeys' Guild. ALS ambulances
are staffed by a minimum of 1 paramedic and 1 emergency medical
technician, who are trained in a variety of first aid and resuscitation
techniques. The Authority recognizes the economic burden this
requirement may place on Racetracks, and in response to these concerns
has added a provision allowing the Racetrack Safety Committee to permit
a Racetrack to have 1 ALS ambulance or ALS adapted vehicle present
during racing and training hours. The Racetrack Safety Committee will
scrutinize any such request very carefully, and always with the safety
of Riders and Covered Horses firmly in mind.
Paragraph (c) requires Racetracks that operate a training track in
addition to a main track to provide at least 1 of the following medical
response vehicles dedicated to the training track during training
hours: 1 ALS ambulance, ALS adapted vehicle, Basic Life Support
(``BLS'') ambulance or BLS adapted vehicle. Requiring a medical
response unit to be present on the training track is necessary to
effectively and swiftly respond to medical events and incidents that
take place at the training track. The Authority again recognizes the
economic burden this may place on Racetracks, and in response to these
concerns has provided tracks with some flexibility as to the type of
ambulance or adapted vehicle present at the track.
Paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) require the tracks to develop and
implement (1) a training program for all ambulance staff to ensure they
are familiar with and adequately trained on the unique safety and
incident response issues present in horseracing; (2) protocols for
incidents involving injuries to more than one Covered Person during the
same race; and (3) an incentive program to retain skilled and certified
ambulance staff experienced in the medical response issues present in
horseracing. The Authority believes these measures are critical to
ensure on-site medical staff are properly trained and experienced in
the unique safety and incident response issues associated with
horseracing. Commenters noted that mandating creation of an incentive
program for retaining personnel is an overreach into the business
operations of the Racetrack.\93\ The Authority appreciates this comment
and recognizes that incentive programs can take many forms. Thus, the
Authority has intentionally left it to the tracks to identify the
type(s) and details of the incentive program that will be most
effective for that track.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland,
Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, paragraph (h) imposes a requirement on tracks to have an
ALS ambulance or ALS adapted vehicle to follow the field at a safe
distance during the running of races. The Authority received comments
expressing concern over mandating the use of a chase vehicle without
accounting for poor weather conditions or narrow Racetrack.\94\ The
Authority appreciates and agrees with these commenters and has modified
the rule to clarify the steps the track should take in the event
Racetrack surface conditions prevent the ALS ambulance or ALS adapted
vehicle from safely following the racing field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Mike Hopkins, Tracks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2167. Rider Injury Reporting Procedure
Rule 2167 is modified to change the title of the rule from
``Accident Reporting System'' to ``Rider Injury Reporting Procedure''
as this better identifies the subjects addressed in this rule.
The rule is also modified to specify that State Racing Commissions
that enter into an agreement with the Authority shall develop the
procedures outlined in the rule, rather than the Racetracks. The term
``Rider'' will replace ``Jockey and exercise rider,'' and the
modification specifies that data collected under the rule shall be
submitted to the Racetrack Risk Management Committee, in addition to
the Authority. This change ensures that the Racetrack Risk Management
Committee is provided with Rider injury data, a critical element in the
Committee's endeavor to ensure the safety of Riders and Covered Horses.
A final change is the inclusion of ``safety equipment used'' in the
listing of data elements to be collected.
The Jockeys' Guild asked several important questions concerning how
the data will be collected and stored. In any Rider injury situation,
the first responders and racetrack safety personnel will have available
data and information that is submitted by the Jockey to the Authority's
electronic platform designated for collection and storage of Jockey
eligibility documentation. This system is designed for use at the scene
of the injury for
[[Page 24589]]
entry of data concerning the Jockey and the circumstances of the
injury. The system will provide an accident report form into which
injury information will be entered in detail. The Jockey's records will
be stored in a database maintained by the electronic platform
referenced above. It will also be available to the Authority for use in
further analysis of issues pertaining to Jockeys and Covered Horses.
The Jockeys' Guild asked if the information may be shared with the
Guild. The Authority is willing to provide the information, provided
the transfer is authorized by the Jockey and in compliance with all
applicable laws.
2168. Equine Ambulance
Several modifications are proposed for this rule to establish
specified performance and equipment requirements. The requirements
specify that the ambulance must be able to operate in all weather
conditions, that it is properly equipped to stabilize distal limb
injuries, and that it is capable of removing a recumbent horse from the
racetrack and safely transporting the horse off of association grounds.
These requirements will enhance the safety of Covered Horses by
ensuring that the ambulance is properly equipped to respond effectively
to any equine injury.
2169. Paddock Safety
Rule 2169 is amended to specify that when State Racing Commissions,
rather than racetracks, enter into an agreement with the Authority, the
State Racing Commissions shall ensure that the protocols outlined in
the rule are in place. This provides greater flexibility to the rule,
and allows State Racing Commissions that agree to do so to perform the
duties in Rule 2169.
2170. Necropsies
Rule 2170 is modified significantly. The current rule states that
``field necropsies are strongly discouraged.'' (In the racing industry,
``field necropsies'' means necropsies performed at the Racetrack.)
Field necropsies are extremely rare today and are not favored. The
modified rule specifies that necropsies shall be performed at a
laboratory. The rule mandates necropsies to be performed on all Covered
Horses that die or are euthanized on Racetrack grounds. In addition,
the rule is extended to include all horses that die or are euthanized
due to, or related to, a musculoskeletal injury within 72 hours of
leaving Racetrack grounds. The rule specifies musculoskeletal injuries
because these injuries are usually sustained as a result of high-speed
training and racing. If the horse leaves the Racetrack after sustaining
the injuries, a necropsy must be performed if the horse dies or is
euthanized within 72 hours. The 72-hour benchmark is an industry
standard; for example, the existing Equine Injury Database by InCompass
operates according to a 72-hour reporting criteria for many types of
injuries. The 72-hour reporting requirement does not apply to other
types of injuries. If, for example, a horse leaves a Racetrack and dies
or is euthanized soon afterward due to colic (which has nothing to do
with racing and might as easily develop on a farm), a necropsy is
required only if the horse dies or is euthanized on Racetrack grounds.
Several Racetracks encouraged the Authority to include the
musculoskeletal injuries 72-hour specification, and the Authority
agrees.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar,
Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modified rule requires Racetracks to establish standard
operating procedures that specify various elements of necropsy
procedure, including contact and coordination between persons and
organizations necessary to perform the necropsy, transportation
options, secure storage procedures, sound infection control practices,
and procedures for reporting necropsy findings.
The modified rule requires Racetracks, or State Racing Commissions
that have an agreement with the Authority, to coordinate with a
diagnostic laboratory that performs necropsies. A contract is not
required because, as noted by several Racetrack commenters, ``it is
difficult to require a contract between a state laboratory and the
racetrack. Simply, the diagnostic laboratory chosen for a particular
necropsy is often based upon volume of horses that can be examined.
Some facilities are very limited in the number of horses they can take
at one time. This often necessitates sending other horses to another
facility. Mandating a contract decreases flexibility in these instances
and will lead to an increase in field necropsies which are less
effective.'' \96\ The requirement in the rule to coordinate with a
diagnostic laboratory that performs necropsies means that arrangements
concerning means of communication, transportation, and intake
procedures must be established. In some states, laboratories may lack
the resources necessary to conduct musculoskeletal injury examinations;
in this case, the rule authorizes Racetracks and/or diagnostic
laboratories to contract with a laboratory that specializes in
musculoskeletal injury racehorse examinations. The rule requires
initial necropsy findings and subsequent reports to be filed with the
Regulatory Veterinarian, the Racetrack Risk Management Committee, and
the Authority within 72 hours of receipt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modified rule imposes the cost of necropsies upon ``those
persons who are responsible for necropsy costs pursuant to existing
state rules. In jurisdictions that do not provide for necropsy costs or
address the responsibility for payment, the Racetrack shall be
responsible for payment.'' Some commenters expressed that Racetracks
should not have to bear some or any of the costs of necropsies.\97\
Nationwide, Racetracks do bear much of the cost, though states have
varying rules and agreements by which the Racetracks, state racing
commissions, and horsemen's groups share the cost together. While the
Racetracks do bear the cost in the absence of state rules or
agreements, nothing in the rule inhibits Racetracks from entering into
such agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ ROCO, Joe Wilson.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Necropsies are a vital source of information in the effort to
prevent equine fatalities. The information obtained from
musculoskeletal injury examinations can help determine the cause of
breakdowns and injuries, and can lead to the discovery or enhancement
of preventive measures. The necropsy rule as modified will ensure that
necropsies are performed effectively and efficiently, and will thereby
benefit Covered Horses.
2180. Safety Training and Continuing Education
2181. Uniform National Trainers Test
This rule is unchanged, except for the capitalization of the word
``State'' and additional language clarifying that Trainers shall be
knowledgeable of the rules set out in the Racetrack Safety Rule and the
Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program.
2182. Continuing Education
Several modifications are proposed for Rule 2182 which establishes
continuing education (``CE'') requirements. The rule is modified to
make clear that Jockeys and Exercise Riders are required to complete at
least 2 hours of safety and rider protocols on an annual basis.
Paragraph (4) concerning CE for Stewards is modified to refer generally
to continuing education programs that might be approved by the
Authority, rather than
[[Page 24590]]
to the specialized ROAP. ROAP is approved by the Authority and provides
high quality CE programs; the modification will allow the Authority to
identify other useful CE programs as well.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ ROAP suggested the continued use of the term ``ROAP,'' but
the Authority believes the better course is to avoid identifying a
particular program by name, since a number of programs may
ultimately be identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New requirements are added for Safety Directors and for the
Farriers and Horseshoe Inspectors who will have roles and
responsibilities under new Rules 2137, 2138, and 2139, which together
create a structured procedure for horseshoe inspections. Minor changes
include the modification to refer to the new proposed defined term
``Starting Gate Persons,'' rather than starters and assistant starters.
Several commenters asked who will provide the CE and monitor
compliance, sanction non-compliance, and set the curriculum.\99\ The
Authority is developing a CE program that will be a component of the
registration portal and will be made available to Covered Persons
participating in states where the State Racing Commission has not
entered into an agreement with the Authority to implement the provision
of Rule 2182. It will allow the entry and monitoring of CE credit hours
for the convenience and benefit of all Covered Persons required to
complete CE hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ ROCO, HPBA, Washington Horse Racing Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state racing commission asked if it would be required to provide
CE, rather than identify existing training opportunities.\100\ The
current rule and modified proposed rule both require a State Racing
Commission that has an agreement with the Authority to ``identify
existing, or provide locally, training opportunities.'' The State
Racing Commission may fully comply with the rule by identifying CE
rather than providing it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2183. Sexual Harassment Prevention
Rule 2183 is a new provision requiring Covered Racetracks to
implement and enforce a sexual harassment and non-discrimination policy
that offers protection to Covered Persons by prohibiting discriminatory
behavior at its facilities. The Authority proposes this new rule in
response to reports it received from racing participants pertaining to
sexual harassment and discrimination at the Racetrack or in a racing
workplace. The reports focused primarily on the absence of an
established reporting process for harassing and discriminatory
behavior, and other comments touched on a lack of confidence in the
reporting system (if any). The Authority aims to address, at least in
part, some of these issues by requiring each Racetrack to develop and
implement and enforce a sexual harassment and non-discrimination policy
that offers protection to Covered Persons by prohibiting discriminatory
behavior at its facilities. At a minimum, the policy must define and
prohibit sexual harassment and discrimination against Covered Persons
within the applicable legal protected classifications and provide an
effective process for reporting and investigation of prohibited sexual
harassment and discrimination. The policy must also memorialize the
Racetrack's authority to impose discipline on any individual found to
be in violation of the policy, including but not limited to exclusion
from the Racetrack (and all related Racetrack grounds and facilities)
and any racing activities.
Several commenters expressed the view that this rule exceeds the
scope of the Authority's jurisdiction under the Act.\101\ The Authority
disagrees. Part of the Authority's statutory mandate is to exercise
independent and national authority over the safety, welfare, and
integrity of Covered Persons. This rule is consistent with that
mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ See, e.g., comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar,
Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing; comment
submitted by Mike Hopkins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In further support of this Rule, the Authority refers the Federal
Trade Commission to a report recently commissioned by controlling
bodies of racing in Australia (Racing Victoria Limited, Harness Racing
Victoria, and Greyhound Racing Victoria), which demonstrates that
harassment and discrimination are widespread in the racing industry and
underscores the need for well-defined channels for reporting sexual
harassment and discrimination in the racing workplace.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ See Racing Integrity Commissioner, Independent Review into
Victorian Racing Industry Victim Support and Complaint Processes
(Aug. 31, 2023), available at <a href="https://racingintegrity.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/201869/Independent-Review.pdf">https://racingintegrity.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/201869/Independent-Review.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2190. Jockey and Starting Gate Person Health
2191. Drug and Alcohol Testing
Currently, Rule 2191 requires State Racing Commissions electing to
enter into an agreement with the Authority to develop and implement a
testing program for drugs and alcohol for Jockeys. The rule is modified
to add Starting Gate Persons to the testing program. Starting Gate
Persons perform a vital role in handling horses and loading them into
the starting gate. Ensuring that Starting Gate Persons are not impaired
is important for their safety and the safety of Jockeys and Covered
Horses. The Jockeys' Guild urged that the program be required for
additional categories of racing officials.\103\ The Authority agrees
that this is an important proposal to consider in future rulemaking. At
present, the most immediate need is to ensure that both Jockeys and
Starting Gate Persons are subject to drug and alcohol testing, and that
will be accomplished under the terms of the proposed rule modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ The Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2192. Concussion Management
A minor modification is proposed for Rule 2192, Concussion
Management. Paragraph (a)(1) is amended to make clear that the
requirement that Jockeys must acknowledge in writing that they have
been made aware of the Concussion protocols is an annual requirement,
rather than a requirement to review the protocols ``in place for the
facility at which they are riding;'' the quoted phrase will be deleted
in the modification.
The Jockeys' Guild stressed the importance of developing a unified
national concussion management protocol with return to ride guidelines
established by medical experts in concussions. The Jockeys' Guild
emphasized that the return to ride protocol should operate to clear a
Jockey to return to riding for all Jockey injuries, and not just
concussions. The Authority's return to ride protocol does embrace all
Jockey injuries. The Authority recognizes the vital importance of these
components of racing safety. The Authority has developed a national
concussion management protocol, as well as a return to ride protocol in
collaboration with the third-party medical records storage organization
with which the Authority has partnered. Both protocols are currently
being implemented nationwide.
2193. Insurance
Rule 2193 requires Racetracks, in states that do not afford Jockeys
workers compensation insurance, to maintain primary accidental medical
expense coverage for all Jockeys. The rule is modified to clarify that
the insurance covers training as well as racing. In addition, the
modified rule will require that the current policy's declaration page
shall be posted in the Jockeys'
[[Page 24591]]
quarters prior to the beginning of the racing season.
Medical insurance is a vital component of ensuring the well-being
of Jockeys, and the extension of medical insurance to training
activities is a natural and beneficial extension of insurance coverage.
The majority of Racetracks across the United States already provide
this coverage, but the rule makes it an explicit and uniform
requirement. The requirement that the declaration page be posted in the
Jockey's quarters allows Jockeys to review the coverage, and to obtain
the name of the insurance company involved in case a Jockey wishes to
inquire further about coverage.
2200. Specific Rules and Requirements of the Racetrack Safety Program
2210. Purpose and Scope
The Authority proposes minor stylistic modifications to this rule
along with elimination of the preemption language referenced in
paragraph (c) as it is a general statement of law that need not be
included in this rule.
2215. Welfare and Deprivation of Care
The Authority proposes this new rule to establish a prohibition on
abusive practices, neglect and mistreatment of Covered Horses that is
not otherwise covered by the rules and to incorporate existing industry
principles and standards codified in the National Thoroughbred Racing
Association Safety and Integrity Alliance Code of Standards and the
Association of Racing Commissioners International Model Rules.
Commenters requested that the Authority describe with particularity
the types of conduct prohibited under this rule.\104\ Abuse, neglect or
mistreatment of a Covered Horse, however, may take many forms and is
not easily capable of definition. Thus, the Authority believes that
this rule, like the Code of Standards and the ARCI Model Rules, should
remain open-ended to provide flexibility in its application to varied
circumstances that could constitute abuse, neglect or mistreatment of a
Covered Horse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Dr. Jeff Blea and the CHRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2220. Attending Veterinarian
The Authority proposes new language to Rule 2220(a) to specify that
an Attending Veterinarian must be licensed by a ``State's board of
veterinary examiners (or applicable veterinary licensing board),'' in
addition to the current requirement of licensure by the State Racing
Commission in the jurisdiction in which the Attending Veterinarian is
attending to Covered Horses.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ The additional language was suggested by the HBPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters noted that treatment should not be limited to
Attending Veterinarians, as Association Veterinarians often provide
emergency care as well as supportive care for Covered Horses that are
injured.\106\ The Authority agrees and has proposed new introductory
language to Rule 2220(a), authorizing Regulatory Veterinarians and Lead
Veterinarians (which are appointed by the Authority and may include
Association Veterinarians) to administer emergency treatment to Covered
Horses on Racetrack grounds when the Attending Veterinarian is not
present.\107\ This exception is necessary to protect the safety and
welfare of Covered Horses in emergency situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ This is a comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar,
Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
\107\ The new introductory language in Rule 2220(a) provides,
``[s]ubject to Rule 2230(d), only Attending Veterinarians . . . may
attend to Covered Horses at any location under the jurisdiction of
the State Racing Commission.'' (emphasis added). Rule 2230(d)
authorizes the Regulatory Veterinarian to administer emergency
treatment to horses on Racetrack grounds when the Attending
Veterinarian is not present. Rule 2134(c) provides that the ``Lead
Veterinarian(s) shall perform all of the duties, obligations and
responsibilities of the Regulatory Veterinarian(s) as specified in
these Rules.'' Thus, this exception permits the Regulatory
Veterinarian(s) and Lead Veterinarian(s) to attend to Covered Horses
in emergency situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2221. Treatments by Attending Veterinarian
In addition to minor modifications to include the words
``Responsible Person'' and ``Covered Horse,'' the word ``drug'' is
replaced by ``Controlled Medication'' in the rule's prohibition against
prescribing, dispensing, or administering a Controlled Medication
except in the context of a valid Veterinarian-client patient
relationship. The term ``Controlled Medication'' is preferred to avoid
confusion, to clarify what is being referenced in this rule, and to
correspond to the term as used and defined in the Anti-Doping and
Medication Control Program Rules.
2230. Treatment Restrictions
Paragraph (a) of the rule is modified to remove the qualifier ``at
locations under the jurisdiction of the State Racing Commission'' from
the provision that now states in pertinent part that only Responsible
Persons ``or their designees shall be permitted to authorize veterinary
medical treatment of Covered Horses under their care, custody, and
control.'' The language is deleted as improperly restrictive; the
restriction concerning the authorization of veterinary medical
treatment exists regardless of where the Covered Horse is located. This
further promotes the welfare of Covered Horses.
Paragraph (b) restricts to Veterinarians the power to prescribe
medication with instructions for administration by a Responsible Person
for a Covered Horse. Paragraph (b) is modified to make clear that a
Veterinarian must be licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the
applicable state only if such licensure is required in the State.
Veterinarians often travel from state to state, and should not be
required to be licensed to practice veterinary medicine in a particular
state if that state does not require such licensure. In addition,
paragraph (b) is modified to delete the requirement that the
Veterinarian be licensed by the State Racing Commission; instead, the
rule now explicitly requires that the Veterinarian be registered with
the Authority.
Paragraph (c) generally prohibits contact by an Attending
Veterinarian with a Covered Horse within the 24 hours before post-time
of race in which the Covered Horse is scheduled to compete. The current
rule permits an exception to this restriction in ``an emergency.'' This
phrase is replaced by more precise language that permitting contact if
``such contact is necessitated by an imminent risk to equine welfare,
health, or safety.'' The rule is also modified to require that any
contact with the Covered Horse within the specified 24 hours be
reported to the Regulatory Veterinarian. This reporting requirement is
necessary to prompt intervention by the Regulatory Veterinarian to
determine whether a Covered Horse should be scratched from the race.
The introductory clause ``notwithstanding Rule 2220(a)'' is added
to paragraph (d). This clause clarifies that paragraph (d), which
permits the Regulatory Veterinarian (and, by extension, the Lead
Veterinarian) to administer emergency treatment to Covered Horses on
Racetrack grounds when the Attending Veterinarian is not present, is an
exception to Rule 2220(a), which states that only Attending
Veterinarians may attend to Covered Horses at locations under the
jurisdiction of the State Racing Commission. Paragraph (g), governing
the ability of persons with medical conditions to possess a syringe at
locations under the jurisdiction of the State Racing Commission, is
modified to require that any request for permission to possess a
syringe must be in writing, and to clarify that the person making the
request must submit a letter from a physician to the Stewards or the
State
[[Page 24592]]
Racing Commission in connection with the request. This modification is
necessary to clarify the process for submitting requests to possess a
syringe on Racetrack grounds.
2240. Veterinarians' List
This rule establishes the Veterinarians' List, which is a list of
Covered Horses that have compromised health or unsoundness and
prohibits these Covered Horses from racing. Rules 2240 through 2242
outline the process by which Covered Horses are determined to have
recovered from their illness or unsoundness and may return to racing.
Covered Horses that participate in a race while medically or physically
compromised are at risk for exacerbating the illness or physical
injury, and in some cases having a career ending or catastrophic
injury, also risking severe injury to the Jockey. The rule prevents
affected Covered Horses from racing until the Covered Horses have
recovered from their illness or injury. The rule is designed to protect
Covered Horses from worsening an existing condition, and allow for
recovery, rehabilitation, and return to racing in a healthy state. The
rule is intended to protect Jockeys from injury associated with a fall
from a Covered Horse due to the Covered Horse incurring a severe injury
during a race and falling at high speed. Racetracks will benefit from
the prevention of horse fatalities during races. Racetracks and Racing
Commissions will benefit because the Veterinarians' List will be shared
among all racing jurisdictions so that Covered Horses put on the list
at one jurisdiction will be identifiable when the Covered Horse moves
to another jurisdiction.
The Authority proposes several modifications to this rule.
Paragraph (b) is modified to state with more precision, and in specific
respects to alter, the current rule governing those Covered Horses
required to be placed on the Veterinarians' List. The modification
deletes the phrase ``positive test or overage, administration of a
medication invoking a mandatory stand down time,'' and the phrase
``positive Out of Competition Test.'' The Authority proposes deletion
of these phrases as no longer necessary with the implementation of the
ADMC Program. Covered Horses with a positive test may be subject to
periods of ineligibility under the ADMC Program, which, like the
Veterinarians' List, prevents the Covered Horse from racing while in a
compromised state.
The current language setting out the triggering conditions or
events that require placement on the Veterinarians' List is re-written
to distinguish placement on the Veterinarians' List by the Regulatory
Veterinarian from placement on the Veterinarians' List by the
Authority. Generally speaking, the Regulatory Veterinarian regulates
and monitors the physical condition of Covered Horses at the Racetrack,
and may place Covered Horses on the Veterinarians' List for physical
conditions such as unsoundness, injury, Epistaxis, and other conditions
listed in the rule. In the new language, three conditions in particular
(unsoundness, injury, Epistaxis) prohibit Covered Horses from
participating in a Workout for 7 days. This is an added safety measure
for the Covered Horse.
The Authority is permitted to place Covered Horses on the
Veterinarians' List for any of the grounds specified in Rule
2240(b)(3)(i) through (vii). These grounds correspond to treatments or
racing status that the Authority has the ability to monitor through
required reporting to the Authority by Responsible Persons and
Attending Veterinarians and include:
(i) Covered Horses which have not started in more than 365 days;
(ii) unraced Covered Horses which have not made a start prior to
January 1 of their 4-year-old year;
(iii) Covered Horses which have been administered Shock Wave
Therapy;
(iv) Covered Horses which have been administered an intra-articular
injection;
(v) Covered Horses which have been administered clenbuterol;
(vi) Covered Horses designated by the Agency; and
(vii) Covered Horses currently on a Veterinarian's List in any
state, if trying to enter in a Covered Horserace.
Several of these categories are added to this rule to harmonize
with the ADMC Rules and to ensure that all reasons for placement on the
Veterinarians' List are included in a single location for easy
reference by stakeholders. Category (vii) is included to account for
Covered Horses that race in Covered Horseraces and non-Covered
Horseraces over the course of their career. This ensures that any
Covered Horse placed on any Veterinarians' List--regardless of
jurisdiction--is accurately captured by the Authority's Veterinarians'
List.
Rule 2240(c) is modified to use the phrases ``Responsible Person''
and ``Designated Owner'' in place of the words ``trainers and owners.''
The essential requirement of the rule remains the same: the Responsible
Person and Designated Owner are required to be notified within 24 hours
that their Covered Horse has been placed on the Veterinarians' List.
The Authority received several comments pertaining to this 24-hour
notification requirement, asking who is responsible for sending the
notification as well as the method for notifying the Responsible Person
and Designated Owner.\108\ Under current practice, notifications are
being delivered through the Authority's portal to the Responsible
Person and the Designated Owner (their contact information is on file
with the Authority) when the Covered Horse is placed on the
Veterinarians' List for a category that requires the Covered Horse to
complete a workout for removal from the Veterinarians' List, such as
Epistaxis, unsoundness, no starts within the last 365 days, and no
start prior to January 1 of the Covered Horse's 4-year-old year. The
Authority is currently developing a system to notify the Responsible
Person and Designated Owner when the Covered Horse is placed on the
Veterinarians' List for all other reasons. The Authority anticipates
this notification system will be live when these rules take effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Graham Motion, Tom Robbins, Breeders' Cup, ROCO, Dr. Lynn
Hovda, and a comment submitted jointly by submitted by NYRA, Del
Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2241. Duration of Stay on the Veterinarians' List
Rule 2241 specifies the duration of periods for which Covered
Horses must remain on the Veterinarians' List. The provisions
concerning multiple placements on the Veterinarians' List for
unsoundness and Epistaxis remain essentially the same--multiple
placements on the Veterinarians' List within a 365-day period could
subject the Covered Horse to an extended period of time on the
Veterinarians' List. This rule is designed to identify Covered Horses
that may be at an increased risk of injury and mandate additional
recovery time.
Physical distress, medical compromise, injury, infirmity, and heat
exhaustion are added to illness in paragraph (a)(5) as conditions
requiring a Covered Horse to remain on the Veterinarians' List for 7
days. These additions are intended to correct an oversight in the
original safety rules which did not provide a duration of stay for
these conditions. The 7-day period on the Veterinarians' List is
consistent with standard industry practice. The phrase ``a minimum'' is
also added to this paragraph to provide discretion to the Regulatory
Veterinarian to extend the duration on the Veterinarians' List.
[[Page 24593]]
The Authority received a comment in response to paragraph (a)(6),
questioning whether a Covered Horse is permitted to participate in
training activities while on the Veterinarians' List following Shock
Wave Therapy treatment.\109\ The Authority supplemented the language in
this rule to clarify that Covered Horses treated with Shock Wave
Therapy are prohibited from participating in a Workout for 14 days.
This permits the Covered Horse to continue light training while
undergoing Shock Wave Therapy treatment, which was a request submitted
by various industry participants.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Tom Robbins.
\110\ See, e.g., Dr. Scott Hay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language is added to paragraph (a)(7) to incorporate the provisions
in Rule 4222 of the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program
regarding the standdown times following administration of an intra-
articular injection to a Covered Horse. The Authority believes the use
and regulation of intra-articular injections is a safety issue that is
best addressed in the Rule 2000 Series. This paragraph (a)(7) requires
Covered Horses administered any intra-articular injection to be placed
on the Veterinarians' List for 14 days and further prohibits the
Covered Horses from participating in a Workout for 7 days. However,
consistent with Rule 2271(a)(12), if the Covered Horse is administered
a corticosteroid intra-articular injection in the fetlock joint, the
duration on the Veterinarians' List is extended to 30 days.
The Authority received a question asking whether a Covered Horse
may apply to perform a Workout 7 days into the 14-day period on the
Veterinarians' List following administration of an intra-articular
injection.\111\ As noted above, this rule has been modified to clarify
that, with the exception of corticosteroid intra-articular injections
in the fetlock joint, a Covered Horse may participate in a Workout and
resume training activities 7 days after being placed on the
Veterinarians' List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Breeders' Cup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2242. Removal of Covered Horses From the Veterinarians' List
Rule 2242 sets forth the criteria for removal of a Covered Horse
from the Veterinarians' List. Under the current rule, a process is
established by which the Trainer and the Attending Veterinarian, after
observing the horse jog, may submit a co-signed statement that the
Covered Horse is fit to perform a Workout. New language will address
diagnostics required by the Regulatory Veterinarian and application by
the Trainer for permission to perform a Workout, such application to be
made no less than 48 hours in advance of the Workout. A new provision
in this rule specifies that: ``If the Covered Horse does not perform
the Workout for the Regulatory Veterinarian within 7 days, the Trainer
and Attending Veterinarian must observe the Covered Horse again at the
jog and submit a new co-signed statement.'' This is to ensure that the
co-signed statement and Workout are taking place as contemporaneously
as practically possible to avoid any significant changes to the health
of Covered Horse between the time of the jog (and co-signed statement)
and the Workout.
Under the current rule, a Covered Horse may be released if the
Regulatory Veterinarian determines that there are no signs of
Epistaxis, physical distress, medical compromise, or unsoundness. New
language requires this determination to be made after the Workout, but
during a period that is no less than 30 minutes and no greater than two
hours after the Workout.\112\ This range enhances safety and is in the
best interests of the health and welfare of the Covered Horse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ This is in response to comments received from Dr. Lynn
Hovda, Tom Robbins, Dr. Jeff Blea, and a comment jointly submitted
by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/
ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional new language requires the collection of a blood sample
after the Workout, and requires the Regulatory Veterinarian who
conducts the Workout to communicate the results to the Regulatory
Veterinarian who placed the Covered Horse on the Veterinarians' List.
Currently, some racing jurisdictions require a blood test before a
Covered Horse may be removed from the Veterinarians' List. The
Authority agrees with this requirement as it enhances equine welfare.
Thus, the Authority proposes this new requirement as a measure to
improve equine safety and welfare of Covered Horses and to benefit the
industry by creating a uniform standard for removal of Covered Horses
from the Veterinarians' List.
A new provision, in paragraph (c), states: ``A Covered Horse which
has not started in more than 365 days or has not made a start prior to
January 1 of its 4-year-old year may perform a Workout in the presence
of the Regulatory Veterinarian beginning 335 days since its last start
or, if unraced, December 1st of its 3-year-old year. If the Covered
Horse has not started within 60 days of being released by the
Regulatory Veterinarian, the Covered Horse must fulfill the
requirements in 2242(a) again.'' This ``pre-clearance process'' is
proposed at the request of stakeholders and provides a mechanism
whereby the Covered Horse may complete a Workout and submit to a blood
sample beginning 335 days since the last start. If cleared by the
Regulatory Veterinarian, the Covered Horse will be permitted to enter a
race immediately (provided it is no later than 60 days from the date
the Covered Horse was cleared by the Regulatory Veterinarian) as
opposed to starting or restarting the clearance process beginning on
day 365 or later. The practical effect is that horses that are
approaching race readiness will not have an additional wait time
imposed if they can be pre-authorized. The time between requesting an
appointment to work off the Veterinarians' List, being cleared by the
testing lab, and having the right race come up for entry can be in
excess of 30 days. The 60-day reset is consistent with pre-existing
standard industry practice.
The following language is to be deleted from the rule: ``In
addition to the requirements set forth herein and any requirements of
the Protocol, if a Horse is placed on the Veterinarians' List for a
positive test or overage of a primary substance invoking a mandatory
stand down time, a positive Out-of-Competition test, or any other
veterinary administrative withdrawal, the Horse shall be prohibited
from entering a Race and may be released from the Veterinarians' List
only after also undergoing a post-Workout inspection by the Regulatory
Veterinarian.'' As noted above, the Authority is deleting language from
Rule 2240 regarding the placement of Covered Horses on the
Veterinarians' List for positive tests. Accordingly, the Authority
proposes deletion of the language in Rule 2242 concerning the
corresponding procedures for removal of these horses from the
Veterinarians' List.
Multiple commenters requested clarification as to the permitted
activities while a Covered Horse is on the Veterinarians' List.\113\
Placement on the Authority's Veterinarians' List restricts a Covered
Horse from participating in a Covered Horserace during the applicable
period of time but, unless expressly prohibited in the rules, the
Covered Horse may participate in a Workout and other training
activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Breeders' Cup and the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24594]]
2250. Covered Horse Treatment History and Records
2251. Veterinary Reports
Rule 2251 sets forth the reporting requirements imposed upon
Veterinarians who treat Covered Horses. The current rule specifies the
information that must be provided; these requirements are modified to
apply to ``treatments, procedures, and surgeries performed at a
location licensed by a State Racing Commission or a Training
Facility.'' An additional category is established in new paragraph (c):
``For treatments, procedures, and surgeries performed at a location
that is not a Training Facility or is not licensed by a State Racing
Commission, and in addition to the information required to be submitted
by Veterinarians pursuant to Rule Series 3000, every Veterinarian who
examines or treats a Covered Horse shall, within 24 hours of ambulatory
care, outpatient care, or discharge from a clinic or hospital, submit
to the Authority the following information in an electronic format
designated by the Authority:. . .'' In response to industry feedback,
the Authority proposes separate reporting requirements to ease the
administrative burden on referral clinics and other medical facilities
that are not licensed by the State Racing Commission. In some
instances, these clinics may be providing multiple treatments per day
to a Covered Horse. To reduce their compliance obligation, the
Authority has limited the reporting requirements of these facilities to
information that is relevant to racing eligibility and the safety and
health of Covered Horses.
A commenter suggested that ``all HISA Registered Vets'' should be
included at the beginning of paragraph (a) of this Rule.\114\ All
veterinarians that treat Covered Horses are required to register with
the Authority. Thus, the Authority does not believe the addition of
this language is necessary. Moreover, the Authority does not want to
exclude unregistered veterinarians from reporting information to the
Authority pertaining to the treatment of Covered Horses. Another
commenter asked what is meant by the term ``treatments'' as used in
this rule.\115\ This term is intended to capture the types of treatment
or practices that would require the Veterinarian to generate a written
record under applicable state veterinary laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ The Jockey Club.
\115\ Keeneland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Authority is proposing new language to this Rule to
explicitly authorize it to utilize the information included in the
treatment records for purposes of research conducted by the Authority
in accordance with its mandate under the Act.
2252. Responsible Persons' Records
Rule 2252 imposes upon Responsible Persons the requirement to
maintain specified categories of records of medical, therapeutic, and
surgical treatments and procedures for every Covered Horse under their
control. The rule specifies that treatment includes ``the
administration of medications that are prescribed by a Veterinarian but
administered by the Responsible Person or the Responsible Person's
designee . . . and specifically excludes medications or procedures
directly administered by a Veterinarian.'' The Authority proposes
deleting all references to ``Veterinarians licensed by the State Racing
Commission'' as duplicative of the definition of Veterinarian in Rule
1020, which already includes a licensing requirement.
A commenter questioned whether the current version of (b)(3)
(``specifically excludes medications or procedures directly
administered by a Veterinarian. . . .'') contradicts with the wording
in Rule 3040(8).\116\ The Authority agrees with this comment and has
revised (b)(3) to include the introductory phrase ``notwithstanding
Rule 3040(8)'' to avoid any potential conflict between the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ HBPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional language is added to clarify that the approval of the
Authority is required for State Racing Commissions and Stewards to
access treatment records, and that no provision of the rules shall
limit the Authority's use of records submitted under the Rule 2000
Series. These changes are made to ensure the Authority may use the
information for purposes of research conducted by the Authority in
accordance with the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act to enhance the
safety and welfare of Covered Horses.
2253. Records for Covered Horses Shipping to the Racetrack
The Authority proposes a few modifications to Rule 2253 pertaining
to records for Covered Horses shipping to a Racetrack. Currently, the
rule requires the Responsible Person to maintain specified treatment
information regarding the Covered Horse for the ``previous thirty (30)
days.'' The Authority proposes removing this requirement to ensure all
treatment information is being maintained by the Responsible Person.
Moreover, the Authority proposes the addition of new categories of
information to be maintained by the Responsible Person, including daily
logs of exercise activities and daily logs of treatments and
procedures. Finally, consistent with Rule 2251 and Rule 2252, the
Authority has proposed new language authorizing it to use the
information for purposes of research in accordance with the Act.
A commenter asked whether the trainer is responsible for
maintaining these records or whether this rule requires submission to
the Authority or someone else.\117\ This Rule 2253 requires the
Responsible Person to obtain and maintain the information set out in
the Rule; there is no language in this Rule requiring the information
to be submitted to the Authority, though the Authority may request the
information at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ ROCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2260. Claiming Races
2261. Transfer of Claimed Covered Horse Records
Claiming races are races in which horses entered in the race may be
purchased for the claiming price by a new trainer/owner. The horse
becomes the property of the new trainer/owner as soon as the horse
leaves the starting gate in the race. In the case of a successful claim
(horse purchase), Rule 2261 effects transfer of medical records of the
horse to the new trainer/owner. Knowledge of the past medical history
provides information to the new trainer/owner so that the horse may be
managed appropriately, given its history, and obtain the best training
and medical care for the horse's optimal health. The proposed
modifications to this Rule clarify the records to be transferred to the
new owner as well as the process for effectuating the transfer of
information.
2262. Void Claim
Rule 2262 contains the Authority's void claim rule. The rule
currently in effect provides the claim exceptions that if the horse
dies, is euthanized, is vanned off (due to the inability of the horse
to exit the racecourse), becomes unsound or medically compromised,
bleeds from the nostrils (and presumably the lungs) after the race, or
has a positive drug test, then transfer of the horse does not occur.
The rule protects the purchaser of the horse from acquiring an injured,
compromised, or dead horse and provides disincentives to trainers/
owners to enter a horse that is compromised from latent injury or
ailment in a race with the intent for another trainer/owner to take
responsibility by claiming the horse in
[[Page 24595]]
the race. The rule does permit the claimant the option not to void the
claim if, prior to the race in which the Covered Horse is claimed, the
claimant elects to claim the Covered Horse by checking the appropriate
box on the claim slip regardless of whether the Regulatory Veterinarian
determines the Covered Horse will be placed on the Veterinarians' List
for Epistaxis or as unsound or lame. The option not to be voided by the
potential new trainer/owner is useful in circumstances in which a
compromised horse may be rehabilitated after the race, or where the new
trainer/owner desires to acquire a horse for breeding purposes as
opposed to continuing to train and race.
The void claim rule protects Covered Horses from being raced when
they are not physically or medically fit to do so. The rule protects
Covered Persons from purchasing a compromised horse. Racetracks, racing
commissions, and the racing industry benefit because compromised horses
in races are more likely to suffer a catastrophic injury, and thus the
rule prevents some catastrophic or career ending injuries. The rule is
now modified in a number of ways to enhance equine safety.
The current rule requires the claimed horse to go to the test barn
for observation by the Regulatory Veterinarian. New provisions are
added that provide more detailed requirements for the observation. A
modification specifies that the horse may be sent to a test barn ``or
approved secured area,'' since the test barn at some Racetracks is not
large enough to accommodate claimed horse inspections. New provisions
include a minimum period of 30 minutes during which the horse shall be
periodically observed, unless excused by the Regulatory Veterinarian; a
requirement that the horse be jogged to determine if the horse exhibits
signs of Epistaxis or is unsound or lame; and a specific direction that
the horse be observed for Epistaxis, or any other clinical
abnormalities. If a horse is placed on the Veterinarians' List for
Epistaxis, or is unsound or lame, a new rule requires the Regulatory
Veterinarian to inform the Stewards, who may order the claim to be
voided.
Current language has been re-worked and new provisions added
stating that if a post-race sample collected from a horse that is
claimed results in an Adverse Analytical Finding (as that term is
defined in the Rule 1000 Series), the claimant is provided 48 hours to
exercise the option to void the claim. This rule was the subject of
much analysis and consideration during its development, and comments
expressed a number of divergent views concerning the rule. If a
Prohibited Substance is determined to be present in the Covered Horse,
the claimant should have the option to void the claim in part because
the Prohibited Substance may have enhanced the performance of the
horse. Claimants should have the option to void the claim under these
circumstances, since the horse's performance in the race is not
reflective of its actual abilities in a race. However, in those
instances in which the Prohibited Substance does not alter the value of
the horse to the claimant, the claimant should have the option to keep
the horse. This might be the case if the claimant desires to purchase
the horse for breeding purposes, rather than to run the horse in future
races.
New provisions are added that specify that the claim may not be
voided if the Covered Horse makes a start under the new owner, if the
new owner fails to exercise due care in maintaining and boarding the
Covered Horse, makes material alterations to the horse, or if the
Covered Horse dies or is euthanized, as these acts demonstrate an
intent on the part of the claimant to exercise ownership of the horse
and could result in physical changes to the horse. The meaning of the
term ``material alterations'' is left open-ended to provide flexibility
in its application to varied circumstances that can constitute and
alteration.
Finally, a new provision is added to permit the claimant whose
claim is voided to recover all sums paid, as well as reasonable
expenses incurred for care of the horse while the horse was in the
care, custody, and control of the claimant. This conforms with pre-
existing industry practice.
2263. Waiver Claiming Option
Under the Waiver Claiming Option Rule, if a horse trainer/owner has
rehabilitated a horse and wishes to start the horse in a race, the
trainer/owner can start the horse in a claiming race without the
possibility of the horse being claimed by another trainer/owner. This
allows a horse trainer/owner to take time to rehabilitate a horse and
then start the horse in a race without the possibility of losing the
horse to another trainer/owner. The rule incentivizes trainers/owners
to rehabilitate horses for long term health and an extended racing
career. A new provision is added which allows a Responsible Person to
declare a Covered Horse to be ineligible to be claimed for a second
consecutive race provided certain conditions are met, including (1) the
waiver was asserted in the first race back; (2) the horse does not win
its first race back; (3) no change in majority ownership; and (4) the
horse is entered in a claiming race with a claiming price equal to or
greater than the claiming price for which it last started. Permitting a
second consecutive waiver encourages owner/trainer continuity and is in
the best interest of the Covered Horse.
2270. Prohibited Practices and Requirements for Safety and Health of
Covered Horses
2271. Prohibited Practices
This rule regulates the use of practices that: (1) mask pain to
allow horses to train and race with injuries or joint disease (e.g.,
neurectomy, shock wave therapy, electrical medical devices); (2) induce
inflammation and pain with the intent to speed healing of injured
structures (e.g., pin-firing); or, (3) cause pain to stimulate a horse
to run faster (e.g., electrical shock). Certain specific practices
(such as shock wave therapy) are also addressed in specific rules in
this section. The rule is intended to prevent abuse of racehorses by
preventing the masking of pain that allows horses to train and race
while injured, and by preventing the stimulation of pain to coerce
racehorses to perform beyond their athletic potential. Inhumane and
dangerous practices on racehorses will be prevented.
This rule also prohibits horses within the foal crop of 2023 or
later from participating in a Covered Horserace or a Timed and Reported
Workout if they have been subject to pin-firing of any structure or
freeze-firing of the shins (dorsal surface of the third metacarpal/
metatarsal bones). These procedures are associated with permanent,
material alterations to the horse and this rule is designed to deter
owners, trainers, and veterinarians from performing these practices on
future Covered Horses.
Paragraph (a)(9) is modified to prohibit use of any medical
therapeutic device requiring an external power source within 48 hours
prior to the start of the published post time for which a Covered Horse
is scheduled to race. The Authority received two comments suggesting
the addition of ``battery operated devices'' to this list; however, the
Authority believes these devices are already captured by the rule as
written.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Dr. Lynn Hovda and a comment jointly submitted by NYRA,
Del Mar, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections (a)(11) and (a)(12) of the rule contain mandatory
standdown times following the administration of an intra-articular
injection. Any Covered Horse treated with any intra-articular injection
of any joint shall not be permitted to
[[Page 24596]]
perform a Workout for 7 days following treatment or participate in a
Covered Horserace for 14 days following treatment. However, if the
Covered Horse is treated with a corticosteroid intra-articular
injection of the metacarpophalangeal or metatarsophalangeal joint, the
horse shall not be permitted to perform a Workout for 14 days following
treatment or participate in a Covered Horserace for 30 days following
treatment. One commenter opposed this increased standdown time for
fetlock joint injections, claiming that these joints should be treated
the same way as other joints.\119\ The Authority disagrees.
Approximately 50 percent of musculoskeletal fatalities are attributable
to an injury to the fetlock joint. The administration of
corticosteroids to the fetlock joint can alleviate inflammation and
pain associated with abnormalities that promote injury in this joint,
leading to potential overexertion, injury, and catastrophic breakdown.
Introduction of a mandatory standdown time from training and racing
activities provides an additional safety margin for horses to recover
from abnormalities that promote injury and reduce susceptibility to
catastrophic injury to this high-risk joint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ Dr. Scott Hay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter stated that the increased standdown time for fetlock
joint injections should be limited to corticosteroids.\120\ The
Authority agrees with this recommendation and the proposed language
limits the increased standdown time to corticosteroid injections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Dr. Jeff Blea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a new penalty section sets forth escalating fines and
suspension periods to be assessed against the Responsible Person for
successive violations within a 365-day period. In addition, if the
Covered Horse involved is the subject of two or more violations with a
365-day period, the Covered Horse may be placed on the Veterinarian's
List for 30 days.
2272. Shock Wave Therapy
This rule regulates the use and monitoring of a treatment (Shock
Wave Therapy) used on bone, tendon, and ligament injuries. Shock Wave
Therapy can also provide pain relief that allows affected horses to
continue to train and race on a mild injury. Continued training and
racing on a mild injury could precipitate a career ending or
catastrophic injury. The rule addresses the problem by closely
monitoring treatments and requiring treated horses to refrain from
training at high speed or racing until an appropriate time for
rehabilitation of the injury that was treated. The rule enhances safety
of Covered Horses by reducing the incidence of career ending and
catastrophic injuries. Because Jockey injuries are associated with
horse falls due to catastrophic injuries during high-speed training and
racing, the rule also enhances Jockey safety and welfare.
There are new reporting requirements incorporated into this rule.
The industry has long recognized the concern that underreported Shock
Wave treatments could be associated with equine musculoskeletal injury.
Administration of Shock Wave Therapy must be reported by the treating
Veterinarian to the Authority within 24 hours after treatment and by
the Responsible Person to the Regulatory Veterinarian within 48 hours
after treatment. This dual-reporting requirement is essential for
promoting Rider and equine welfare and ensures the Covered Horse is
placed on the Veterinarians' List following Shock Wave Therapy
treatment.
This rule also contains a slight expansion to the registration
requirement for machines used to administer Shock Wave treatment. The
rule now makes clear that these machines are required to be registered
with the Authority, if they are being used to treat Covered Horses. The
Authority's previous registration requirements reflected the industry's
interest in understanding the locations where Shock Wave treatments
were being administered. Knowing that Shock Wave treatment machines are
in use at facilities not licensed by State Racing Commissions, this new
registration requirement is intended to extend the industry's pre-
existing registration requirements to include unlicensed locations.
Finally, this rule contains enhanced penalties for a failure to
report Shock Wave Therapy treatment. A commenter expressed concern over
the leniency of the existing penalties for a failure to report
treatment, which included a 5-day suspension for a first offense.\121\
The commenter urged the Authority to adopt the penalty schedule
established in the ARCI Model Rules, which carries a minimum 1-year
suspension and $10,000 fine for a first offense. The Authority agreed
that enhanced penalties are in the best interests of Covered Horses and
Riders and has proposed a penalty structure that more closely aligns
with the ARCI Model Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ The Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2273. Other Devices
This rule currently prohibits the possession of any device which is
designed to increase or retard the speed of a Covered Horse, with the
exception of riding crops. The rule is in place in all US racing
jurisdictions. The penalty for noncompliance is not standard across
jurisdictions and varies from a 10-year loss of racing license to
suspensions and fines. The rule is intended to standardize the language
nationally and standardize sanctions. Stewards will have national
standardized language and sanctions when adjudicating cases and issuing
sanctions. Covered Persons will know that the industry considers the
use of performance-affecting devices a serious issue.
Initially, the rule was intended to cover horses in racing and
training. Now the coverage of the rule is expanded to embrace horse
welfare in the context of any use of prohibited devices upon Covered
Horses. The rule is modified to prohibit devices that are ``purchased,
designed, or used with the intent'' to retard or increase the speed of
a Covered Horse. This will preclude, for example, use of a cattle prod
on the grounds, even though a cattle prod is not specifically designed
to be used on a horse. The phrase ``or during a Workout'' is deleted as
unnecessary due to the fact workouts are conducted on Racetrack
grounds.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ A comment by the CHRB prompted deletion of the reference
to ``Workout.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter suggested that various specific items that might be
used as prohibited devices be specifically listed.\123\ The Authority
prefers to the more flexible language referring to ``electrical,
mechanical, or other devices,'' as it expresses more broadly any type
of device is prohibited that may be used to retard or increase the
speed of a Covered Horse and will also capture devices that are not
currently known by the Authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ ROCO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2274. Other Device Penalties
Rule 2274, which provides the penalties for violation of Rule 2273,
is modified to impose restrictions upon registration with the Authority
as the penalty for violations of Rule 2273. The modification deletes
the reference to loss of eligibility ``to obtain a racing license in
all racing jurisdictions.'' The change is made because restrictions
upon registration with the Authority are more appropriate penalties
imposed by the Authority.
[[Page 24597]]
2275. Communication Devices
Rule 2275, which regulates the use of communication devices by
Riders, is modified to clarify that the prohibition upon the use of a
hand-held communication device applies to a Rider who is mounted on a
``Covered Horse or Pony Horse.'' Two commenters questioned whether this
rule should be revised to clarify whether this prohibition applies to
just the racing surface or all areas of the racetrack.\124\ The term
``Rider'' is limited to persons mounted on a Covered Horse or Pony
Horse on the racing surface. Therefore, the rule is already clear that
the prohibition on the use of hand-held communication devices applies
just to the racing surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Dr. Jeff Blea and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters expressed concerns that the rule might prohibit
the use of two-way radios entirely.\125\ The rule does not prohibit
two-way radios that, as an example, clip onto a vest and are equipped
with a shoulder microphone. The purpose of the rule is to prohibit the
use of devices that are hand-held and interfere with a Rider's control
of the horse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ Barbara Borden, ROCO, Jockeys' Guild, The Jockey Club.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the above, a new provision is added that states: ``A
Rider, while on a Covered Horse or Pony Horse, shall not wear an audio
device that obstructs or impairs the Rider's ability to hear other
horses, Riders, hazards, or the Racetrack's emergency warning system.''
This rule does not prohibit the use of hearing aids, which enhances
hearing, but rather is intended to prohibit, for example, audio devices
on both ears with noise cancelling features.
2276. Horseshoes
The rule limits the height of rims used as traction devices on
forelimb and hindlimb horseshoes. The rule prohibits use of any other
traction devices except in specific circumstances. Traction devices
affect the interaction of the hoof with the racetrack surface, altering
movement of the hoof through the racetrack surface. That reduction of
movement contributes to catastrophic breakdowns and skeletal injuries.
The rule follows the scientific evidence that shows that traction
devices increase equine injuries. The rule is intended to increase the
safety of Riders and Covered Horses by reducing the number of accidents
resulting from injuries associated with the use of traction devices.
The rule will standardize traction device use nationwide.
The Authority proposes modifications to this Rule to establish
specific prohibitions on the use of traction devices based on the type
of racing surface (dirt, synthetic, and turf). A commenter requested
clarification as to whether certain inserts and wear plates would be
considered a prohibited traction device under this rule.\126\ The
Authority has addressed this question through the creation of a new
definition for ``Traction Device'' in the definitions section of Rule
2010. This definition clarifies that ``Traction Device'' includes ``any
device that extends beyond the ground surface of the horseshoe and
includes but is not limited to inserts, wear plates, rims, toe grabs,
bends, jar calks, stickers, ice nails, frost nails, and mud nails.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ Dan Burke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2280. Use of Riding Crop
Allowing use of the crop enhances safety of Covered Horses and
Riders. The rule limits the number of times the crop can be used for
encouragement. The rule unifies crop design and use of the crop across
all jurisdictions. The rule unifies penalties for crop abuse or use of
prohibited devices across jurisdictions. There has been heated debate
about use of the riding crop, especially for encouragement. Some
believe the new crops do not hurt the horse at all, while others remain
concerned about the public perception of using a crop for
encouragement. The rule allows riding crop use for safety of the horse
and Jockey. It also limits the number of times the crop can be used for
encouragement during a race. This compromise of use of the crop for
safety, and limited use for encouragement that will be unified across
racing jurisdictions is in the best interest of the horses, horsemen,
the owners, the Jockeys, the betting public, racing commissions, and
the general public. The rule is intended to protect horses from
excessive use of the crop. Jockeys will have a clear understanding of
crop use rules and will be able to adapt their usage due to uniformity
of the rules.
The Authority proposes additional language clarifying that a tap to
the shoulder of the horse is permitted and does not count towards the 6
permitted uses of the crop as set forth in Rule 2280. The Rule is
modified to make clear that the rule applies to Jockeys who use a
riding crop on a ``Covered Horse.'' A new provision is added that
prohibits a Jockey from striking a Covered Horse with any other object
than a riding crop that conforms to the requirements established in
Rule 2281.
Commenters urged that additional strikes be permitted depending
upon the length of the race, or that the number of permitted strikes be
increased under varying circumstances.\127\ The Authority believes that
6 strikes is an appropriate limit, and that the length of the race is
less significant as most crop use takes place in the final stretch. The
Authority also notes that the exception concerning use of the crop for
safety purposes provides proper flexibility in the use of the crop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ The Jockeys' Guild, HBPA, Christine Sanchez.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters suggested that the language in this rule be modified to
make clear that the riding crop rules apply only to Covered Horseraces
so that Racetracks and State Racing Commissions can further limit the
use of the crop during training activities.\128\ The Authority believes
this is an appropriate modification and has revised this rule to
clarify that it only applies ``during a Covered Horserace.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ Comment jointly submitted by NYRA, Del Mar, Keeneland,
Churchill Downs, Breeders' Cup, and 1/ST Racing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2281. Riding Crop Specifications
The Authority proposed numerous modifications to Rule 2281.
Paragraph (c) is modified to include the word ``flap'' in addition to
``smooth foam cylinder'' to permit the use of riding crops that
incorporate a flap, rather than a foam cylinder. This will permit the
use of additional riding crops which may be used safely and effectively
by Jockeys. Paragraph (c)(6) is modified to require riding crops to
``have a mark identifying the name and manufacturer of the crop.'' This
language was suggested by a commenter and will assist in ensuring
compliance with the riding crop specifications.\129\ The requirement
that the riding crop bear a label stating that the riding crop meets
the Rule 2281 standards is deleted as unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ The Jockeys' Guild.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A commenter suggested that the rule explicitly require riding crops
to be tested for durability and use.\130\ The Authority appreciates the
comment. There are currently no standards for durability testing of
crops. The Authority has initiated the process for development of a
durability test and will reconsider this comment when an appropriate
test is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2282. Riding Crop Violations and Penalties
The proposed modification for Rule 2282 will alter the system of
penalties applicable to riding crop violations. The new system
establishes a scale of
[[Page 24598]]
penalties that escalate in severity as the purse value of the race
increases. Some members of the industry believe that the imposition of
the same penalties upon Jockeys regardless of purse size, is too severe
as applied to Jockeys running at small tracks for small purses, and
that the Jockeys running in high stakes races should be penalized more
heavily for violations. The rule will be based upon five tiers of purse
levels, and will impose fines, suspensions and disqualifications that
are tailored to the particular tier. The rule will benefit Jockeys and
other Covered Persons by ensuring that riding crop violations result in
meaningful penalties that are fairly administered. The number of riding
crop violations has declined significantly since the implementation of
the riding crop rule on July 1, 2022. The Authority believes that the
rule is having the desired effect upon excessive use of the crop at
Covered Horseraces.
A commenter suggested increasing the purse level on the lowest
tier, which is set at $9,000.00 in the proposed rule.\131\ The
Authority believes the current purse levels as matched with penalties
are appropriate and fair to Jockeys at all levels of competition.
Another commenter opined that horses should not be disqualified as part
of the penalty against the Jockey.\132\ The Authority believes the
penalty of disqualification is appropriate as applied to violations by
the penalty scheme. Among other things, this penalty disincentivizes
trainers/owners from encouraging Jockeys to violate the crop rule for
purposes of winning races, and in some instances paying the jockey
penalty for the Jockey. The Authority's Racetrack Safety Committee
studied all aspects of the riding crop rule thoroughly and over a
prolonged period, and received a great deal of comment and advice from
Jockey experts in the industry. The Authority believes the penalties
achieve an equitable balance as applied to all Jockeys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ Breeders' Cup.
\132\ HPBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter asked who is responsible for adjudicating the
initial violation of the riding crop rule.\133\ This question is
addressed by Rule 8320, which states that the Stewards shall adjudicate
all alleged violations of Rule 2280 relating to the use of the riding
crop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ Keeneland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2283. Multiple Violations
Rule 2283 is modified by the establishment of a new set of rules
concerning multiple violations of the Rule 2280 riding crop rules. The
point system in the current rule will be deleted, and replaced by a
system in which an escalating multiplier is applied to repeated
violations in the previous 180 days. A commenter has urged that the
severity of the penalties is excessive.\134\ The Authority closely
studies and monitors the riding crop use and the imposition of
appropriate penalties, and will consider all views expressed by members
of the industry. As one commenter noted, ``multiple violation penalty
rules for riding crop violations were recommended to better ensure
compliance, deter excessive use of the riding crop, and give teeth to
the new requirements.'' \135\ The Authority agrees. The Authority
believes that the riding crop rule is operating very effectively as a
deterrent, and this multiple violation rule is vital to the safety and
welfare of Covered Horses as it disincentivizes ``jockeys who routinely
flout the new riding crop rules.'' \136\
--
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on April 8, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.