The less people know about the new horse racing integrity law the more likely they are to criticize the costs of implementing it. Part of this skepticism comes from a built-in antipathy for anything having to do with the federal government. Part of it comes from how difficult it is to understand where the costs of implementing HISA come from and how they are distributed. And part of it comes from the fact that until very recently there were simply no numbers to crunch, no data to analyze. Some racing commissions, HISA officials discovered last year, didn’t keep track of their costs or were unable or unwilling to share them with federal regulators.
As we approach the one-year anniversary of HISA rule, we are beginning to get data that can help us begin to answer the “cost question.” I spoke last week with Lisa Lazarus, HISA’s chief executive officer. She told me that the implementation of the new law has increased costs to racetracks and horse people by an average of 15 to 20 percent. In states like California, Lazarus told me, the increases have been lower because the state racing commission there had pre-invested more in testing and other protocols. In other states, like Ohio and Indiana where state racing commissions spent relatively little on such protocols, the increase is likely higher.
Some states like Florida, New Mexico, and Virginia, Lazarus told me, cover all the costs through a tax initiative or from other areas of government budgets. HISA costs, when they are not paid by the state’s racing commission, are typically split 50-50 between track owners and operators on the one hand and horsemen and horsewomen on the other and have been taken from purse money or other sources rather than any per-race start fees. In a perfect world, breeders and owners and veterinarians and big corporations that run many of the nation’s racetracks would also share these costs. Can we at least all agree on that?
A cost increase of 15 to 20 percent is not nothing. Lazarus acknowledges that. But it is a lot less than the costs HISA scaremongers warned us about. I see it as the cost of doing business in a sport that is trying to keep its horses safe while rooting out the cheaters in its midst. I am sure there are owners out there who don’t think the added costs are worth it but I have yet to meet one. Paying a little more for uniform testing standards in horse racing is the same as paying taxes for local police and prosecutors and health inspectors. If you don’t pay, don’t complain when the services you get disappoint you. Put another way, any added costs from HISA are a fraction of what honest horse people lose in purse money each year to dishonest ones.
Information Or Disinformation?
I also asked Lazarus about the latest anti-HISA screed served up by the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association. The Winter 2023 Issue of the Horsemen’s Journal, posted online last month, contains an article titled: “Fact or Fiction? Dissecting the 60 Minutes piece on “one of the biggest horse doping investigations in U.S. history’”. The article caught my eye for several reasons. First, I once worked for CBS News and 60 Minutes. Second, I was interviewed for the 60 Minutes piece. Third, an executive at the United States Trotting Association was circulating the article online as part of the USTA’s anti-HISA initiative.
The National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association’s mission statement, posted on the organization’s website, includes lofty goals like “supporting the development, adoption, implementation and enforcement of nationwide uniform rules that promote safety and integrity in racing” and “encouraging the highest standards of horsemanship to continuously improve the care, health and safety of the horse.” There is even a sentence about the mission of disseminating “information” on “critical issues” to the racing community. What’s “information” to some, however, is misinformation or disinformation to others.
I don’t have the space to go through all of the dubious points made in the HBPA piece, but a few things are worth saying about it. First, it’s unfair to blame the subjects of any news piece for the content or the timing of that piece. People were interviewed in June for the 60 Minutes piece that was broadcast in October. A lot happened in racing between those two dates. Second, it’s important to respond to under-the-radar essays like this, even when they aren’t picked up by traditional racing publications, because they spread informally online and achieve a level of importance regardless of the accuracy or reliability of their content.
Like me, Lazarus also was unwilling to refute the HBPA essay point by point but she did say that there was “absolutely no truth” to the allegation that new federal medication rules were in place during the breakdowns at Churchill Downs last spring. The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, Lazarus told me, had not already put federal rules into action, as the essayists claimed. What I found striking about the HBPA’s work is its complete lack of self-awareness of the problem horse doping presents to the future of racing. That’s probably why the USTA’s leadership was so quick to pass around the essay to its own unsuspecting members.
Notes
“Time is on our side, as of right now, but, as you know, time runs down pretty quickly.” Good for Hall of Famer John Campbell for taking a rational approach to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act in Sunday’s edition of Harness Racing Update. The legendary driver, one of the most respected people in Standardbred racing, is working with harness people to come up with suggested revisions to the federal regulations that would apply to Standardbred racing if (and, I think, when) HISA covers harness racing in a few years. This sort of long-term thinking is missing entirely from the United States Trotting Association’s leadership.
New Jersey Boys. Last year, Jeff Gural*, the owner of the Meadowlands Racetrack and two New York tracks, told me and others, including some members of the Standardbred Owners and Breeders of New Jersey, that he was going to ask New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy to veto any legislation authorizing purse subsidies if the horsemen’s group didn’t come out in public support of HISA. This week, after Murphy surprisingly pocket-vetoed that very legislation, at least one member of the SBOA accused Gural of making good on his threat. There’s also a new allegation that Murphy needed no encouragement from Gural to block the legislation because the governor himself has turned into an opponent of HISA.
Lisa Lazarus told me that she has never spoken to Murphy about the new racing integrity law and that she is not even sure he knows what HISA is. She says she has no reason to believe that Murphy is opposed to HISA. For his part, Gural told me last week that he never followed through on his threat to ask the governor to veto the purse subsidies. Gural says he asked the governor instead to encourage Judy Nason, the embattled head of the New Jersey Racing Commission, to ”opt into” HISA authority this year. I am not sure Nason will be around later this year. Meanwhile, Gural says he’s repeatedly asked Lazarus to be open-minded about breed-specific changes to HISA regulations to fit the Standardbred racing model.
You are what your racehorse eats. Interesting story last week by the Daily Racing Form’s Jay Bergman on Michael Calderone, a Standardbred guy, whose thoughts about nutrition for horses had led him to “start his own stable, buy his own horses, and with a group of scientists, do his own field testing, if you will, to find out how he can come up with a diet and an overall program to improve the wellness of each horse and in doing so, achieve longevity on the racetrack.” I wonder how the ultimate product of Calderone’s work stacks up against those who advocate for a “water, hay, oats” approach to keeping horses healthy and sound.
Looking forward. The more that young people are involved in horse racing the better it will be for horse racing. Anyone want to argue with that? HISA announced last week that it is creating a “Next Generation Advisory Group” made up of early to mid-stage professionals who have an interest in helping to shape the future of the sport. HISA is inviting candidates to submit an application by February 9, 2024. I wish someone had asked me to be on such a board in the 1990s when I was a young professional. And I hope that high-ranking officials really do listen to what this new advisory group advises once it is formed.
HISA and the law. It’s hard to predict whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear any challenges to the new federal racing integrity law. Unless there is a conflict at the lower appeals level, and right now there isn’t, there’s little reason why the Justices would select a HISA case to hear on their dwindling docket. Remember, also, that virtually all of the judges who have declared HISA to be a constitutional exercise are the nominees of Republican president. That’s why those of us who are fascinated by how the challenge to HISA will end are watching for other Supreme Court cases that might offer guidance.
Last week, for example, the justices heard just such a case, a challenge to severely limit the government’s regulatory power. The court’s conservatives seemed eager to do so and, if they succeed, you can be sure the ruling will wind up being cited in future HISA-related briefs. My boss Ray Paulick has been tracking another case along the same lines, a Supreme Court challenge to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to protect investors against fraud. Expect the SEC decision to come first, in a month or two, and the other decision to come in the final week of news when the justices dump decisions they know will be unpopular.
*Disclosure: I own pieces of a few racehorses and broodmares with Jeff Gural, the owner and operator of The Meadowlands and two harness tracks in upstate New York. The Meadowlands is also a sponsor of this column).
