Posts Tagged ‘ed martin’

Ed Martin, president of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, took exception to horse owner Barry Irwin’s guest commentary published here last week (Hey, states…take a hike!) that suggested racing would be better off if it managed to get states out of the regulatory business and allow the industry to police itself. The former executive director of the New York Racing and Wagering Board believes regulators are not part of racing’s problems but of its solutions. He also said regulators are working on an interstate compact that could bring states much closer to uniformity in rules and regulations governing the sport.By Ed Martin
Every now and then someone pops off out of frustration, raising the prospect of trying to figure out how racing can self-police its gambling enterprises. Such was the case with last week’s commentary by Team Valor president Barry Irwin suggesting the possibility that the independent state racing commissions can somehow be eliminated and the industry will just foot the bill and take care of everything, bringing all sorts of fans, new and old, back to the sport.

Yes, it is true state governments are facing hard economic times. So are the American people, including most racing participants and fans. The elimination of the government regulation of this form of gambling will destroy this sport in ways that I am sure Mr. Irwin does not intend or envision. Perhaps if there were no gambling, then his idea might make sense. So, unless he seeks a private club with no gambling everyone’s time is wasted contemplating the insane idea that elected officials are going to allow gambling enterprises to self police themselves. It’s a bad idea that will not pass the smell test.

To bolster his case, Irwin cites how the New York Racing Association in New York was victimized by the state. Excuse me, but NYRA did have to march in front of a federal judge and admit to a conspiracy to defraud the government. The “we have great racing and we know what we’re doing” defense wasn’t going to work given the magnitude of the felony that cheated the public regardless of whether they were racing fans or not. This was a terrible black eye on racing by an entity governed by some of the most prominent individuals in American Thoroughbred racing and it would not be in racing’s future interest for people to minimize the seriousness of that situation.

As one who worked on that case, it was amazing that NYRA refused to do a daily cash count and reconciliation in the mutuel department. They do that at the corner grocery store, but somehow this was something to be resisted when suggested by the state. I will never forget the day when NYRA sent in a team of some of the most politically connected trustees to argue against a daily cash count. One of those present was the president of my bank. I stopped using that man’s bank.

Sure, let’s open some champagne and make those nasty state regulators go away. After all they were the ones who investigated and cracked the case that exposed how a tote company’s computer programmer could access a live wagering file and turn a losing Breeders’ Cup Pick 6 wager into a winning one. The New York Racing and Wagering Board partnering with the New York State Police cracked that case within 48 hours of Valponi’s Classic win. What was amazing in doing the investigation was that this activity had gone on undetected for some time and no internal controls, self auditing or self policing program had safeguarded the industry’s interests. We unearthed a problem plaguing the industry and regulators alike.

Mr. Irwin seems to like the Stewards, who for the most part are employees of the state commissions. Well, we must be doing something right. But he does not appear to tolerate due process. Commissions are as frustrated with this as anyone, but perhaps if Mr. Irwin had been around in the days of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, things might be different. In a system of due process, allegations must be proven based on solid evidence. People have a right to appeal and we are always open to solid suggestions as to how to minimize the ability of some to “play the system”. The concept of a Monarch was rejected in the revolution and we have no choice but to accept the constitutional guarantees that we all enjoy, including the scoundrels.

At no point in the almost five years I have been at RCI or the preceding nine at the New York Racing and Wagering Board did Mr. Irwin ever make a suggestion directly to either entity as to how to more effectively tackle racing’s integrity challenge. Things can always be done better but racing should never forget that when it comes to drugs, we test for more substances at deeper levels than any other professional sport. There is a lot that is done right, but you’d never know it as some explain their loss by leveling undocumented charges against winners. Perhaps if racing stopped casting aspersions on those who are successful on the track or at the betting windows we might be able to generate some excitement and attract new fans. But no, if you hit a lucky streak you must be cheating.

The only entities that sort out what is real and what is not are the state racing commissions. Those who cheat will do it for the money and the initiatives of RCI and the state regulators to track the money through independent real-time wagering monitoring have met with nothing but unexplained resistance or foot dragging from key industry entities. Some of those barriers are coming down, but oh so slowly. I agree with Mr. Irwin that cheaters can kill this sport, but why do we devote all our attention to following the drugs and virtually none to following the money? The money path will help identify the real drug problem or fraud by collusion. It is unexplainable to me that people resist when the regulators want to chase the money in addition to chasing the drugs.

The state regulators have been calling for reforms and could really use some help from the industry in terms of either money, commitment, or support in state capitals to protect commission budgets that pay for drug testing, pre-race exams, backstretch investigators, the officials, the background checks, name it. In these tough times racing regulatory commissions are vulnerable targets for state budget offices looking to fill potholes rather than test more horses for drugs or monitor betting activity. We’re not perfect, no institution or person is. But every regulator that I know is committed to trying to do the job as best as possible, despite the lack of budgetary or industry support.

There are those who want to create a federal regulator which would just create another layer that would have to be paid for. An alternative is to explore the concept of creating a national regulatory body through a new interstate compact, a mechanism for state regulators to act as one in certain instances. Just this week, 15 state regulatory commissions held a joint discussion on how a proposal working its way through the New York legislature might work in their states. There is progress being made and the impetus is coming from the RCI member staffs, vets, labs and vendors who form the backbone of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium’s drug initiative.

When I started with RCI in 2005, we called for a new public private partnership and a restructuring of our collective “integrity efforts”. I reiterated that at this year’s Racing Congress. No takers. Rather than partner with the regulators, pool resources and improve the status quo, new entities are formed, funded and promoted by hired guns. Dump on us all you want but state racing commissions are a given and we will not stop in trying to raise the bar.

Please join with us Mr. Irwin. Perhaps together we can break the negative energy that is sinking this sport.

By Ray Paulick
There was a table-pounding moment Tuesday afternoon at the annual convention of the Association of Racing Commissioners International when Ed Martin, president of the group seen widely as a do-nothing organization, admonished its members to do something.

I felt, for the first time in over 20 years of reporting on the RCI, that it actually might have a pulse. I flashed back to the cherubic Tony Chamblin, whose primary job as longtime head of the RCI was trying to keep his own job. When he could no longer win that battle, he left behind a legacy of a civil war among regulators, one that resulted in two national organizations, RCI and the splinter group North American Pari-Mutuel Regulators Association. Racing industry veteran Lonny Powell replaced Chamblin in 2001, and in his tenure helped put Humpty Dumpty back together. Martin finished the job in 2005, when he succeeded Powell as president of RCI, and the merger of the two organizations was completed in 2006.

So, a cynic might say, we once again have just one useless national organization of regulators with no real authority, instead of two.

Martin is hoping to change that image of the RCI, but it was clear in his rising voice and pointed words that his frustrations are growing. Betting scandals and pari-mutuel pool tampering continues, Martin said, but regulators do nothing. The industry spends $35 million on drug testing to little avail, he said, but virtually nothing on wagering security, the economic foundation of the business. Regulators  at the RCI convention hear proposals for how wagering security can be improved and then go home and do nothing. Tracks, he said, say they want to do their own thing but end up doing nothing.

Professional horseplayer Mike Maloney outlined ongoing problems with past-post betting and pool tampering and said regulators exacerbate the problems and suspicions about the integrity of wagering by shielding the incidents from the public. There must be transparency before you can insure integrity, Maloney said.

I had the opportunity to address the regulators at the RCI convention and tried to impress upon them that horseplayers are fed up like I’ve never seen before. I asked readers of the Paulick Report to tell me what they think should be the top priorities of state racing commissioners, and owners, breeders, trainers and horseplayers responded with legitimate and well-reasoned concerns. Foremost among them were calls for tougher enforcement of medication violations and uniform rules from one state to another, something that might not have been important 25 years ago when racing was a localized sport. Today, with interstate simulcasting accounting for nearly 90% of pari-mutuel handle, it is imperative that the rules are the same across the board: on medication, drug testing, penalties, wagering, and licensing.

There is cheating going on, and people in this industry know it, whether it’s medication violations by trainers and veterinarians who know how to game the system (and only get a slap on the wrist when they’re caught) or gamblers using off-shore account-wagering businesses that are not adequately regulated.

Your comments (all of which are being made available to RCI members) helped me convey to regulators how critically important it is for them to take serious action. If they don’t, I suggested, the federal government will.

That point was driven home earlier in the day by Keeneland president and CEO Nick Nicholson, who is also chairman of the American Horse Council and as a former U.S. Senate aide knows how Washington can work. “This particular Congress is not concerned where the problem is but they are determined that they will be part of the solution,” Nicholson said. “This Congress is going to be activist.”

Nicholson brought the Council of State Governments into play last year in hopes of creating an alternative to federal intervention, using interstate compacts, something that is common to other industries. RCI’s president, Ed Martin, also sees interstate compacts as a realistic solution to the challenge of having 38 state regulatory boards walking in lock-step with one another. But it’s going to be up to the individual state racing commissions to make a compact work.

John Mountjoy, director of policy and research for the Council of State Governments, explained to RCI members how interstate compacts work and outlined their various benefits. Among other things, Mountjoy said, interstate compacts offer a federal solution “without Washington.” Uniform rules, operations and training can be achieved through an interstate compact, he said, while allowing flexibility and state sovereignty.

Interstate compacts can’t happen overnight, he added, indicating it could take several years to have one fully operational.

This much we know. There is a crisis of confidence in this industry among the biggest stakeholders–the horseplayers who fund the economic engine with billions of dollars of bets each year. But those stakeholders wagered fewer dollars on U.S. racing in 2008 than in any year since 1998, and this year’s handle promises to be even lower.

Racing commissioners from different states have shown over time they are incapable of taking the necessary steps to address the fundamental problems. There may be a pulse at the RCI that I didn’t sense 10 years ago, and there are good people involved at RCI and many state racing commissions. However, I’m afraid that when most of the commissioners and their paid staff return home from the RCI 2009 convention, it will be business as usual and nothing significantly will change.

That will open the door to Congress and let the federal government come up with its own solution.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.

By Ray Paulick
It may not be searchable, completely accurate or as comprehensive as it could be, but the Association of Racing Commissioners International has put together a web site that includes publication of recent rulings from various racing commissions and stewards throughout North America. It’s the kind of thing the Daily Racing Form did years ago in print when it enjoyed a monopoly on past performance information and was the de facto publication of record for the pari-mutuel industry (not to mention one of the most profitable newspapers in the country).

In those days, you could find out who was fined for having a loose dog, smoking in the shedrow, or parking illegally in the stable area. You could also read what jockeys have been suspended or fined for rules violations, what trainers got positive tests for prohibited drugs or overages for permitted medications, and what owners hadn’t paid their bills.

But as profits and news space shrunk, the Form cut out many of its “service to the industry” features, and one of the things to hit the editor’s cutting-room floor was stewards and racing commission rulings. It became increasingly difficult to keep up with why certain jockeys weren’t riding, why some red-hot trainers suddenly went ice-cold, or why a horse was now being trained by someone we hadn’t heard of (usually an assistant to a suspended trainer).

Some tracks post their stewards and commission rulings in public areas or in the racing office; big name suspensions or fines might get picked up in the trade press or local newspapers. But, by and large, it’s been a hit or miss proposition to try and keep up with who has run afoul of racing officials.

Enter the RCI, an organization formed in 1934 under the name National Association of State Racing Commissioners whose name was changed to Association of Racing Commissioners International in 1988. Whether under the NASRC or RCI banner, this has traditionally been viewed as one of the most useless organizations the industry has ever had, mostly because it lacks authority to get anything done. The RCI is an association that can make all kinds of recommendations to its members, but lacks the authority to enforce anything. Some years ago, the RCI threatened to sanction members that didn’t adopt its guidelines on such issues as medication regulations, but those efforts were laughed off. To make matters worse, then RCI president Tony Chamblin was under fire from many commissioners, and a number of states quit RCI and in 1997 formed a splinter group, the North American Pari-Mutuel Regulators Association.

Thus, until the two groups merged back together in 2006, racing had the ultimate absurdity: two competing national associations of regulators, both of them relatively toothless and useless. It’s no wonder we are in such dire straits today regarding the lack of national rules and regulations for the sport.

Fortunately, RCI and NAPRA did merge, and for the past few years RCI president and CEO Ed Martin has been putting the pieces back together. The RCI remains toothless, and some would suggest they are still useless. However, there are things that RCI can do in the way of communications to the public and education to its members, and it’s good to see the organization is focusing on those areas.

One thing RCI can’t control is the quality of its membership. For the most part, racing commissioners continue to be political appointees of governors who in many cases are returning favors for campaign contributions or other types of assistance. Many of those appointees are absolutely clueless when it comes to racing, but RCI can help educate them.

From the standpoint of communicating to the public, there is no greater role for RCI to play than to be a clearinghouse of current and past information from all of its members. That means all rulings from stewards and racing commissions against licensees should be easily accessed at the RCI website, and in a perfect world those rulings would be completely searchable. That’s not the case yet, because RCI is yet another one of those cash-strapped racing organizations that has a bigger mission budget.”

However, what the RCI has (click here to view recent rulings) is a pretty good start. Looking at the rulings posted today, for example, I learned that jockey Gabriel Saez (who was under fire from animal rights groups last year after the death of Eight Belles) was fined $500 for striking his mount with the whip after dismounting from a Feb. 8 race at Fair Grounds. I also learned that a Kentucky licensee named David L. Kirk has been suspended six months for “possession of injectable medications and hypodermic needles” on association grounds.

There are clearly some errors and omissions on the RCI rulings page. One ruling involving Monticello harness track in New York is listed as under the jurisdiction of the California Horse Racing Board. There are numerous rulings missing from California, and none from Arizona, among other states.

But it’s a start.

Why is it important for this information to be public? From the perspective of racing fans, their money supports this game and they deserve to know who among the state licensees has been sanctioned for any and all rules violations. Owners who make a significant investment in the game also have a right to know who is following the rules and who isn’t. Access to this information should be seamless and completely transparent for all jurisdictions.

Some state regulatory bodies, including the California Horse Racing Board, New York State Racing and Wagering Board, and Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, among others, have focused on making their own websites searchable for rulings and infractions. But their time and money might be better spent helping the RCI build a comprehensive, user friendly and completely searchable web site so that racing could have a dependable clearinghouse of information. It’s something the industry deserves, and the RCI is the best-positioned group to deliver it.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

By Ray Paulick

(UPDATED OCT. 10 TO REFLECT NEW POLICY FROM MAGNA ENTERTAINMENT)

When the Judiciary Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives held a markup hearing on Sept. 17 to discuss H.B. 6598, the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008 that would ban slaughter and criminalize the transportation of horses for the purpose of having them slaughtered for human consumption, a letter from National Thoroughbred Racing Association president and CEO Alex Waldrop said his organization took a neutral position on H.B. 6598 despite supporting previous anti-slaughter legislation.

Waldrop’s position statement, read into the record by Republican Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, outraged a number of prominent Thoroughbred industry participants, including Pin Oak Stud’s Josephine Abercrombie, who wrote a letter signed by more than 40 individuals that was sent to the leadership of the Judiciary Committee stating that the NTRA did not speak for them on the issue. The Judiciary Committee passed the legislation on Sept. 23 and sent it to the full House.

On Oct. 3, however, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) referred the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act to the Agriculture Committee, giving that committee until Jan. 3, 2009, to take action on the bill. Since the 110^th Congress has adjourned, the bill will not pass unless it comes up during a lame duck session, which is highly unlikely.

Agriculture Committee chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and ranking Republican Goodlatte both have been recipients of contributions from the NTRA PAC, most recently receiving $5,000 for their 2008 campaigns. Peterson is a member of the Congressional Horse Caucus and Goodlatte has been a strong ally of the NTRA’s lobbying efforts concerning Internet gambling and tax incentives for breeders. Goodlatte has been an opponent of slaughter legislation. (Abercrombie, incidentally, is a “champion” level NTRA Horse PAC donor, giving $5,000.)

In the wake of the Judiciary Committee’s action on anti-slaughter legislation and the NTRA’s neutral position (the American Horse Council is also neutral), Paulick Report readers suggested we contact other major Thoroughbred industry associations and businesses to see if they have taken a position on the issue of slaughter and on the specific legislation (H.B. 6598).

Listed alphabetically by organization, here is what we learned:

ASSOCIATION OF RACING COMMISSIONERS INTERNATIONAL: According to RCI president/CEO Ed Martin, the RCI “normally does not take positions on pending legislation in Congress and has not been asked by any of its members to address the issue.”

BREEDERS’ CUP:  Greg Avioli, president/CEO, said the Breeders’ Cup “has not issued a formal policy statement on the slaughter legislation before Congress. However, it is the strong consensus of our board that slaughter is inhumane and any and all reasonable options other than slaughter should be pursued. In furtherance of this position, proceeds from this year’s Championships will go to multiple retirement organizations.”

CHURCHILL DOWNS INC. Officials did not reply to requests for a position statement. Churchill Downs Inc, created the Greener Pastures program in conjunction with the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and supports other retirement and retraining programs.

FASIG-TIPTON: Did not reply to requests for a position statement. Under the leadership of the late John Hettinger, Fasig-Tipton’s majority shareholder, the company created Blue Horse Charities to offer support to various retirement and retraining organizations. Hettinger was the industry’s leading anti-slaughter advocate.

JOCKEY CLUB: Spokesman Bob Curran gave no position on H.B. 6598 but said the official breed registry “is opposed to the slaughter or processing of Thoroughbreds for consumption by humans or animals. This includes the sale and/or transportation of Thoroughbreds for slaughter or processing for consumption by humans or animals.” The Jockey Club is a member of the Unwanted Horse Coalition.

KEENELAND ASSOCIATION: Did not reply to requests for a position statement. Keeneland and its foundation have supported Thoroughbred retirement and retraining organizations, including the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation and Rerun.

KENTUCKY EQUINE EDUCATION PROJECT: A statement from executive director Patrick Neely said: “It has been a topic of discussion in some of KEEP’s industry working groups but no formal position has been taken at this time.”

KENTUCKY THOROUGHBRED ASSOCIATION: Did not reply to requests for a position statement. KTA lists several Thoroughbred retirement organizations on its Web site.

MAGNA ENTERTAINMENT (owns Santa Anita, Gulfstream, Laurel, Pimlico, Lone Star Park, Remington Park, Golden Gate Fields): Does not have a position statement on slaughter or current anti-slaughter legislation, according to an official with the company. OCT. 10 UPDATE: MAGNA INSTITUTES NEW POLICY. CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS.

NATIONAL HORSEMEN’S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION: CEO Remi Bellocq said he could not provide a yes or no answer to whether the organization supports a ban on slaughter or H.B. 6598 because of the diversity of the 30 HBPA affiliates across North America. “Our horsemen and horsewomen fall across the spectrum on this issue,” Bellocq said. The National HBPA is a member of the Unwanted Horse Coalition. Bellocq said “this shouldn’t be defined necessarily as a ‘slaughter for human consumption’ issue but, rather, an ‘unwanted horses’ issue. To a person, if given a choice, horsemen would much prefer finding a home and/or second career for their horses as opposed to slaughter. Unfortunately, no matter what legislation (state or federal) is passed, the real problem – the number of unwanted horses – will still exist. To stem the number of unwanted horses, education and awareness are a key first step to successfully bring the number down.

“To that end, in 2005 National HBPA was one of the founding members of the Unwanted Horse and we continue working actively within the UHC to better educate horsemen about the options including, should all else fail, humane euthanasia. The UHC has set-up a big tent under which all the wonderful horse rescue programs can work together. If we truly made an industry-wide effort to centralize, for example, an ex-racehorse outplacement / adoption program, I am convinced many could be placed with willing owners. Why not, for instance, establish a national site modeled after Petfinder.com? Already, organizations like the Illinois HBPA have created similar approaches with success (see Illinois HBPA’s Horses Wanted link.”

NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION: Did not reply to requests for a position statement. NYRA offers support to the Exceller Fund, which helps place retired horses and has supported the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation.

THOROUGHBRED HORSEMEN’S ASSOCIATION: CEO Alan Foreman said the organization has not taken a position on the current legislation. “There will be a new Congress in January and we will visit the issue then,” Foreman said.

THOROUGHBRED OWNERS AND BREEDERS ASSOCIATION:  Position statement from TOBA president Dan Metzger: “We are categorically opposed to the slaughter of Thoroughbreds, and urge all those involved in the Thoroughbred industry to support rescue and adoption efforts and to work together to find humane means of dealing with the problems presented by Thoroughbreds no longer suitable for racing or breeding.” Metzger did not indicate whether or not TOBA has a position on H.B. 6598. TOBA is a member of the Unwanted Horse Coalition and is affiliated with Thoroughbred Charities of America, which supports numerous horse retirement and retraining operations.

THOROUGHBRED OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA: Did not reply to requests for a position statement. TOC’s Web site offers advice to a horse’s “last owner” and pushed for a first-of-its-kind charitable fund, the Calfornia Retirement Management Account  (CARMA), to solicit and distribute purse checkoffs for retirement and retraining programs. Transport for slaughter is illegal in California.

THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATIONS: Executive vice president Chris Scherf said the organization of North American racetracks has adopted no official position.