National horse racing oversight authority
 

McConnell, Barr announce plans for national horse racing oversight authority.

https://www.wkyt.com/2020/08/31/watc...-announcement/



Thoroughbred industry leaders, Senator Mitch McConnell and Congressman Andy Barr were among those present Monday afternoon for the announcement of a national oversight body for horse racing.
Officials announced the formation of the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Authority, which will be an independent, non-governmental body that will regulate medication use and racetrack safety.
The United States Anti-Doping Agency will also be involved with enforcement.
Sen. McConnell mentioned recent scandals involving accidents on tracks and doping. There were nine horse deaths at Keeneland in 2019.

Can't come soon enough. :ThmbUp:
I hope it has the desired impact.

Jeez...you'd think there would be more pressing problems in the country that Mitch might want to devote his time to right now...:rolleyes:

True, but I have a feeling it is probably a political stunt so he can get re-elected in Kentucky.

I see no teeth.

No teeth, nothing changes

Btw, how many states are going to give this group the finger? I’d say just about all of them.

That’s the thing . Some people are already complaining. But I said it was coming a while ago. How can you make a case for keeping your house in order with the shit that comes to light. Yeah, no teeth yet but once the govt. is in there you can bet eventually the Pit Bulls will come out .

yea, this sport really needs a federal governing body to solve its uses. That outta work out well :popcorn:

Horse racing act
 

Once it's introduced in the Senate, the text should be available on the senate website to see what's actually in there.

You can say this about anything, but I would say that the integrity of an industry that employs a lot of Kentuckians would be a concern of his.

This sport absolutely needs federal regulation. The state regulators are captured by powerful horsemen, and the gambling pools are now nationwide. Honestly, the whole thing should be run by the feds.

Current text ... https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/h...16hr1754ih.pdf

First of all, this is not a government agency. It's an independent authority, not subject to appointment by politicians. Like the FTC, who would be overseeing the board.

But the composition of the board is important. Take a look at Section 5. In brief, the board consists of 13 members:

The CEO of USADA

6 people, chosen by USADA, taken from members of the board of USADA

6 people, selected by USADA, from different industry constituencies, such that:

at least one has expertise in equine medication regulation
at least one has significant experience as an owner or expertise in breeding
at least one formerly employed as a race track executive
at least one with a vet degree with equine experience
at least one with expertise in training horses
at least one member with expertise as a jockey

(Note that bettors are not considered a constituency in the makeup of the board.)

But later, under "Conflicts of Interest", it says that no board member may have a financial interest or provides goods or services to covered horses; nor serve in any governance or policy making capacity; nor have a business or commercial relation with anyone that meets the first two exclusions.

I can see why some are leery of all this. First, USADA has a majority position (the CEO plus 6 USADA board members out of 13). The others are chosen by USADA, so it's clear that this will be a USADA-driven board. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but it's a concern. I don't understand why they need SIX board members from the USADA board, who may not know anything about horses, other than to stack the voting. Knock that six down to two and I'd feel more comfortable.

And the Conflicts of Interest bit is problematic. For example, they want someone with expertise in training, but he/she can't be training horses. They want someone with vet expertise, but he/she can't be providing services to horses. This sounds like a great opportunity for retirees.

Yes, conflicts of interest abound in the current scheme, but if you toss out everyone with financial interests, or providing goods and services, you're left with slim pickings. I guess Dutrow would qualify :).

I got worn out by the legalese about halfway through, but I would suggest that everyone read through section 5.

I'm beginning to agree with this more as time goes by.

I suspect the actual problem that the industry has is the opposite- that USADA knows full well that the industry basically coddles dopers.

As long as our sport is as corrupt and tolerant of doping as it is, there's really no way you can allow "experts" in who are connected to racing. Your horse experts would need to be academics and other such folks who have no financial interest in and no friends in the sport of horse racing. Otherwise, you end up letting the foxes into the chicken coop.

Federal regulation always solves everything! They are just a lot smarter than the people making state regulations plus they never let politics interfere with solving a problem correctly. And don't forget it will all be free!

I can't, for the life of me, see how the Feds could screw this game up any more than it already is.