Quote:
Originally Posted by Sysonby
Once it's introduced in the Senate, the text should be available on the senate website to see what's actually in there.
|
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.
