Monday, September 6, 2010

Horse drug test up for vote

Horse drug test up for vote

Horse drug test up for vote

Posted: 06 Sep 2010 06:19 PM PDT

LEXINGTON, Ky. — Changes made in a proposed drug-testing rule for horses on days they don't race have addressed some concerns expressed by horsemen, but leaders of owner and trainer groups say they still want the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission to wait before approving the policy.

The commission is scheduled to meet Tuesday at Churchill Downs to vote on the out-of-competition rule, which would be in addition to existing post-race testing. The new testing would be intended to catch prohibited performance-enhancing drugs that have been in a horse's system long enough to evade detection, but still be effective.

Regulators want the rule in place in time for the Breeders' Cup at Churchill Nov. 5-6, but horsemen would rather see a rule specifically targeted at the championship races, while waiting for more debate on a comprehensive rule.

Marty Maline, executive director of the Kentucky Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, said significant changes have been made in the wake of several meetings of commission committees and town hall forums.

Given that, waiting would be best, he said. "Whenever you do something like that, you're bound to put together something that's just not going to work."

But the idea of waiting hasn't been received well by members of the two commission committees that have considered the proposed rule.

"I think it's important to send the message that we care about integrity issues in racing in Kentucky year round, not just two days a year," said state Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown, a member of the Equine Drug Research Council, which approved the rule Sept. 2.

Thayer supports the rule generally but voted against it on Sept. 2 because he wants a stiffer, 10-year penalty for a first-time offender, which he said would conform with the penalty in four other states and Ontario, Canada, that have out-of-competition testing. California has a one-to-three-year penalty.

The proposal as it stands calls for a range of five to 10 years and a $50,000 fine.

Proponents of the range say they believe it has a better chance of being upheld by a judge, who may view an automatic 10-year penalty as, in effect, a lifetime ban.

(2 of 2)

Since the drug council has agreed with the penalties already supported by a majority of the commission's rules committee, Dr. Jerry Yon, the chairman of the drug council, said he expects it will receive approval Tuesday.

If the rule is approved, commission officials have said they plan to ask Gov. Steve Beshear to sign it as an emergency regulation so it would take effect immediately while the same version goes through the monthslong legislative review process.

While commission officials have said that any problems found with the emergency rule could be addressed during the review of the permanent rule, Remi Bellocq, chief executive officer of the national HBPA, said that concerns horsemen.

"The worry there is that once you have a rule on the books, it's on the books" and becomes tougher to change. "Absent any other options, deal with the Breeders' Cup issue first, certainly. And then let's catch our breath and calm down and look at the long-term thing."

Even a five-year penalty would be stringent for many trainers, Bellocq said. "We've got to be careful for the regular guy with the three horses in his barn that if they make a mistake and they run him out of town for five years, he's done," Bellocq said. It would take years to prove his innocence, while "he's working at Lowe's and selling furniture. … A lot of these guys don't have high-priced lawyers."

The potential penalties are stiff, proponents say, because regulators say testing is made difficult by staffing logistics and a relatively narrow window for finding a prohibited medication in an out-of-competition test. Testing would need to be done several weeks in advance of a race, when potential runners wouldn't necessarily be set.

Owners and trainers could be suspended for 180 days if they refused to let a horse be tested.

An earlier draft of the rule — which was criticized by horsemen — would have banned a trainer even if the refusal was strictly the owner's doing. Stewards would be able to judge them separately under the current proposal.

Reporter Gregory A. Hall can be reached at (502) 582-4087.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: "Peace Envoy" Blair Gets an Easy Ride in the Independent.
Posted by at

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)