Judge rules non-lasix races unconstitutional in Kentucky

[Longshot]

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has found unconstitutional a Kentucky Horse Racing Commission regulation that permits racetracks to conduct races for which horses could not be treated with the legal anti-bleeder medication furosemide, according to a release Wednesday from the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association.

Agreeing with the position of the Kentucky HPBA, Conway’s office wrote in its opinion that the KHRC’s action allowing tracks to stage furosemide-free races is an “invalid delegation of administrative rule-making authority to private actors” and that “determination of whether a race is furosemide-free cannot be left solely to individual racetracks.”

[azeri98]

Why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing? Europe and Japan seem to be doing fine without it.

[chadk66]

I'm all for lasix use but I don't think this judge's ruling will hold up under challenge. A track is a private enterprise that can do whatever it so chooses in this regard. Next thing you know this judge will be reinstating lance Armstrong

[Tom]

Don't judges have any real work to do?
Stupid ruling.
Judy Judy???

[Tall One]

And this guy could've been my governor.

Conway is just trying to flex some authority. They're in the business..won the bluegrass few years back, iirc, so there's an angle here. Believe that.

[menifee]

The Attorney Genral is not a judge - he is a member of the executive branch. This opinion was issued at the request of the Kentucky HBPA after the Kentucky Horse Racing commission granted Kee the right to card non-lasix races in accordance with International Medication Protocol. All the opinion states that under Kentucky law to approve that condition for a race (non-lasix), the KHRC needs to make that decision and cannot delegate that authority to tracks.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by chadk66

I'm all for lasix use but I don't think this judge's ruling will hold up under challenge. A track is a private enterprise that can do whatever it so chooses in this regard. Next thing you know this judge will be reinstating lance Armstrong

The original posting was a little confusing. The headline referenced a judge, but the posting referenced the Attorney General, who can only issue an opinion. Of course if the AG issued the opinion and a judge upheld it, that would be kosher.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing? Europe and Japan seem to be doing fine without it.

There is a lot of depth to that discussion. The primary difference between other jurisdictions and North America is that NA allows raceday Lasix. That is the ONLY drug allowed within 24 hours of a race. All other approved therapeutic medications have residual limits that horses have to meet. Any drug not on the list of the approved 26 is essentially zero tolerance, and if a horse has even a trace in its system, it's a violation. There are a number of drugs on the approved medication list at ARCI that actually have tighter standards than Europe. I've also mentioned that if you took Dubai, Japan and Hong Kong together, they run fewer races in a year than NA runs in a week in August. When you need a tenth of the horses we do to fill races, banning Lasix is far less controversial, especially when you don't have to fill cards at a bunch of C level tracks. You can still find plenty of runners to fill fields in those places. Run 35-40 races in a weekend in NA and I guarantee we could do it without a drop of Lasix. I don't want to have the Lasix discussion, but off the cuff statements like why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing, followed by the implication that there are no drugs in other jurisdictions, are mythical. Tell me which of the 26 approved ARCI therapeutic medications shouldn't be on the list, or which of the 26 standards is too lax? 99% of the hot button discussion regarding drugs in racing is about one medication, Lasix, and the chances the anti-Lasix folks are going to convince the vast majority of horsemen to give it up, or the chances the vast majority of horsemen are going to convince the anti-Lasix folks to give it up are about the same as ISIL throwing down their weapons and saying screw it.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The original posting was a little confusing. The headline referenced a judge, but the posting referenced the Attorney General, who can only issue an opinion. Of course if the AG issued the opinion and a judge upheld it, that would be kosher.

that makes a lot more sense

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Longshot

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has found unconstitutional a Kentucky Horse Racing Commission regulation that permits racetracks to conduct races for which horses could not be treated with the legal anti-bleeder medication furosemide, according to a release Wednesday from the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association.

Agreeing with the position of the Kentucky HPBA, Conway’s office wrote in its opinion that the KHRC’s action allowing tracks to stage furosemide-free races is an “invalid delegation of administrative rule-making authority to private actors” and that “determination of whether a race is furosemide-free cannot be left solely to individual racetracks.”

First.....shame on the Kentucky horsemen from challenging this. It makes them look real bad....
Second....And this is strictly my opinion so please, no flaming....
This is an example of an unjust law perpetrated on the public by ham handed government.
Them: "it's the law"
US: it's a stupid law
Them: it's the law...
Is that good government?

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by menifee

The Attorney Genral is not a judge - he is a member of the executive branch. This opinion was issued at the request of the Kentucky HBPA after the Kentucky Horse Racing commission granted Kee the right to card non-lasix races in accordance with International Medication Protocol. All the opinion states that under Kentucky law to approve that condition for a race (non-lasix), the KHRC needs to make that decision and cannot delegate that authority to tracks.

Notwithstanding the law as it is written, it appears as though the Keeneland management skipped a step and did not kneel and kiss the KHRC's ring.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing? Europe and Japan seem to be doing fine without it.

The med rules are almost like an entitlement. Once in place, an entitlement is impossible to get rid of....

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

There is a lot of depth to that discussion. The primary difference between other jurisdictions and North America is that NA allows raceday Lasix. That is the ONLY drug allowed within 24 hours of a race. All other approved therapeutic medications have residual limits that horses have to meet. Any drug not on the list of the approved 26 is essentially zero tolerance, and if a horse has even a trace in its system, it's a violation. There are a number of drugs on the approved medication list at ARCI that actually have tighter standards than Europe. I've also mentioned that if you took Dubai, Japan and Hong Kong together, they run fewer races in a year than NA runs in a week in August. When you need a tenth of the horses we do to fill races, banning Lasix is far less controversial, especially when you don't have to fill cards at a bunch of C level tracks. You can still find plenty of runners to fill fields in those places. Run 35-40 races in a weekend in NA and I guarantee we could do it without a drop of Lasix. I don't want to have the Lasix discussion, but off the cuff statements like why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing, followed by the implication that there are no drugs in other jurisdictions, are mythical. Tell me which of the 26 approved ARCI therapeutic medications shouldn't be on the list, or which of the 26 standards is too lax? 99% of the hot button discussion regarding drugs in racing is about one medication, Lasix, and the chances the anti-Lasix folks are going to convince the vast majority of horsemen to give it up, or the chances the vast majority of horsemen are going to convince the anti-Lasix folks to give it up are about the same as ISIL throwing down their weapons and saying screw it.

All of which makes complete sense.
However, New York was one the last states to ban race day meds. The state finally had to get in line as other states in the northeast, one by one legalized race day meds.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thespaah

All of which makes complete sense.
However, New York was one the last states to ban race day meds. The state finally had to get in line as other states in the northeast, one by one legalized race day meds.

I believe they were the last holdout and it has only been since 1995. Like many of the states that gave in, it was primarily a result of pressure from the horsemen. As someone remarked at the time, Lasix may be good for the horse, but we don't know if it is good for racing.

[nearco]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I've also mentioned that if you took Dubai, Japan and Hong Kong together, they run fewer races in a year than NA runs in a week in August. When you need a tenth of the horses we do to fill races, banning Lasix is far less controversial, especially when you don't have to fill cards at a bunch of C level tracks.

That is absolute bullshit. Not sure why you feel the need to lie.

There were 42975 TB races run in US in 2013. That's for a country with a population of 320m people.

There were 17249 TB races in Japan+HK+UAE combined in 2013. The collective population of those countries is 143m people.

In other words they have 44% the population of the US and run about 40% as many races.

So your contention that they run as many races per year as the US does in a week is bullshit.

BTW, they also have larger fields and more starts per horse per year. And they do that without Lasix.