Officials Drug Tested

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

What does this even mean?

It was a valid question.

Andy gets ripped apart 10 ways to Sunday all over social media, but you're untouchable?

It was just a simple question.

lol..Good lord, do you think I don't get ripped?? You know I'm a polarizing figure. I will match vitriol from critics with Andy any day. Compared to me he is universally loved. LOL..

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Pretty sure that Belterra requires pre-employment drug testing.

More importantly, if they have a racing license (and they do), racing officials are as eligible to be tested by the commission as any other licensees. Rarely happens, but I don't see any reason why it can't. I also can't see the managements "fighting this to the death." Testing those people seems ill-advised, but not illegal.

I have no opinion on the legality. But the battle has already begun. In earnest and behind the scenes.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Totally cool that it matters to you and some of your friends/co-workers. Makes perfect sense. This is true to all of us in some situations. However, I think it's fair to say you might have blown this one's significance out of proportion. That's really all Craig and I were saying.

Our worlds are always more important to us than everyone else.

There is, I have heard, just a bit more to the story that gives it the potential to make news. That's as far as I can go.

[classhandicapper]

Are they looking for PEDs or legal therapeutics because IMO legal therapeutics should be handled differently. Ask for a split blood test and urine test. That seems to slow things down.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Are they looking for PEDs or legal therapeutics because IMO legal therapeutics should be handled differently. Ask for a split blood test and urine test. That seems to slow things down.

I think Performance Enhancing Drugs should be mandatory for many judges and stewards. Especially those at NYRA

[mountainman]

I learned last night that the official agreement says licensed persons can only be tested by random lot or with probable cause. And that does not authorize this sweeping action.

[toddbowker]

The Ohio Racing Commission has long had a rule about this.

3769-8-09
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administ...rule-3769-8-09

I was a racing official in Ohio for many years. You could always be tested for cause or if they were doing random tests. I personally was never tested in the ten meets I worked in Ohio. Never saw a random test called, but I do know of individual people who were tested for cause and one group.

We also had to take a mandatory breathalyzer on race days prior to the start of the card.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by toddbowker

The Ohio Racing Commission has long had a rule about this.

3769-8-09
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-administ...rule-3769-8-09

I was a racing official in Ohio for many years. You could always be tested for cause or if they were doing random tests. I personally was never tested in the ten meets I worked in Ohio. Never saw a random test called, but I do know of individual people who were tested for cause and one group.

We also had to take a mandatory breathalyzer on race days prior to the start of the card.

Informative. And there is another section in that rule which specifies the circumstances required for testing.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Reportedly, Within the last 48 hours every (thoroughbred) racing official in Ohio, save those off work and waiting for Mvr to open, has been drug tested.

Such a wide-sweeping and costly measure is , to my knowledge, unprecedented. I have worked 30 years as an official, my boss 40, and neither of us can recall a single coworker being tested.

Word has it that management at both Btp and Tdn consider this action illegal and will fight the commission to the death.

Stay tuned. This is going to get real.

*Correction: While all racing officials at Tdn were tested, only the stewards were tested at Btp.

[craigbraddick]

Drug testing happened to racing officials randomly when I was at Louisiana Downs in 2010.

I would have zero issue with that being the case in any state I worked in. The job of a Racing Official comes with responsibility and you owe it to everyone to bring the best of yourself to the job every day.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I was drug tested at Monmouth as an official, and that was only in the roughly three to four weeks that I was there.

I would think it was commonplace.

[Robert Fischer]

Seems goofy to me.

-also, my HIPAA rights... I don't want to have to explain or share medical information.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by craigbraddick

Drug testing happened to racing officials randomly when I was at Louisiana Downs in 2010.

I would have zero issue with that being the case in any state I worked in. The job of a Racing Official comes with responsibility and you owe it to everyone to bring the best of yourself to the job every day.

But Ohio aside, what if you felt official policy had been circumvented and your legal rights violated?

Would you accept being tested without protest or complaint?

[craigbraddick]

Originally Posted by mountainman

But Ohio aside, what if you felt official policy had been circumvented and your legal rights violated?

Would you accept being tested without protest or complaint?

It is a good question, Mark.

I am not a lawyer so am obviously not sure of all the legal implications.

I guess if you are told going in and it is a term and condition of employment or state licensing you would have to accept it.

if it is a rule introduced after your employment has started and is being applied in a manner that is consistent with how the new rule is written I would imagine it would be a smart idea to have a grace period before applying any new rules. But already I would think you are treading into a legal minefield as people may have different ideas of how the rule and testing process is performed. But on balance, I would do it, reluctantly, but would do it.

If they suspect you have been using some kind of substance either on the job or off the job to the point it impacts your job, I would think in a right world there would have to be a medical examination to prove it and that potentially opens up a world of hurt and a situation that can probably be better handled by counseling or such. I would be very unhappy at the insinuation and the procedures I just described and would think twice before agreeing to such a process and probably consult legal advice.

I know I am prescribed a narcotic for chronic pain that I do not abuse and have an MMJ card I seldom use and I have no idea whether they would make exceptions for that. I know they do in AZ and CA (where I primarily work) but not sure about other places.

Ultimately, and from reading your posts lately, I guess you can associate with this, sometimes you have to plough on even if you are not feeling well and do the best you can. it would be nice if instead of spending money on random drug tests, if money is going to be spent on health related matters, it was made available to individual to use as they see fit. But of course, that will never happen, anywhere!

Hope everything is going well at Mountaineer!


|

[v j stauffer]

When I was a Ca. Steward.

Any licensee was subject to a random, without notice, drug test.

Failure to agree to the test was immediately considered a positive.