RCI to Consider “One Strike, You’re Out”
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY - The Board of Directors of Racing Commissioners International (RCI) has voted to direct its committees to develop a “One Strike, You’re Out” proposal for those licensees found to be responsible for putting substances in horses that endanger the horse.
Under
an approach outlined by RCI President Ed Martin, not only licensed trainers,
but also owners who fail to monitor their trainers and the veterinarians who
provide or facilitate the administration of such substances could be subject to
exclusion. In addition to racing license revocation, complaints would also be
filed with law enforcement for possible violations of animal cruelty statutes.
The
RCI Regulatory Veterinarians Committee has been instructed to compile a list of
substances that, if found in a horse during drug testing, would warrant this
type of treatment. The committee chairperson, Dr. Lynn Hovda of the Minnesota
Racing Commission, suggested that the presence of some therapeutic substances
(e.g. Clenbuterol) at excessive levels should also be considered, suggesting
that such administrations may qualify those responsible for similar regulatory
treatment.
Maximum
penalties under current RCI Model Rules recommend a first time penalty for the
most egregious drug violation of a one to three year suspension and a $10,000
to $25,000 fine. A license revocation recommendation currently does not apply
in until the second offense with aggravating circumstances.
“There
is general consensus among the regulators that these guidelines do not deter
those who would use things that endanger our horses. This will be
changed,” predicted Martin.
The
RCI Board also agreed in principle with a proposed procedure in which
veterinarians believed to be overusing legal medications in inappropriate ways
would be referred to those agencies with the power to review their actions and
revoke their license to practice veterinary medicine.
“RCI
is clearly concerned about reports of the overuse and possible abuse of legal
medications and believe that this is where the hole is in the racing regulatory
scheme,” Martin said, noting that racing commissions do not have jurisdictional
authority over the practice of veterinary medicine.
While
endorsing the concept, the RCI Board deferred action on a specific protocol
proposed by Martin based upon concerns raised by the Regulatory Veterinarians
Committee. The committee was instructed to suggest modifications and instructed
the Model Rules Committee to consider how best to handle such referrals at its
next meeting, currently scheduled for December 6, 2012 in Tucson, Arizona.
In
other actions, the RCI Board adopted the following Model Rule revisions:
•
A
requirement that written logs be maintained by racetrack security personnel
noting the names and license numbers of those individuals who enter the
backstretch of racetracks between the hours of Midnight and 5:00am
• New restrictions on the use of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy (ESWT) machines and the imposition of a 1 year suspension and $10,000 fine for rule violations. Aggravating factors could increase the penalty to a three year suspension and $25,000 fine as well as a 90-day exclusion of the horse from racing. ESWT machines would be registered with the commission and the location and hours of treatments required to be approved.
• Horses treated by veterinarians with ESWT would be ineligible to race or train for ten days following the day of treatment, treatments must be reported to the official veterinarian, and horses treated would be placed on an “ineligible list” maintained in the race office and accessible to practicing veterinarians and jockeys.
The
RCI Board also voted to accelerate review of the proposed Reform Medication
Rules submitted by The Jockey Club and created a Task Force to assess the
recommended thresholds and withdrawal times.
“We
appreciate the proposal that The Jockey Club has made and view it as a good
first step that is in need of some strengthening in certain areas,” Martin
noted. “There is general agreement among the regulators to develop stronger
penalties and to provide a level of deterrence to those veterinarians who may
be pressured to do things they know in their heart they should not.”
