Posts Tagged ‘ingrid fermin’
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009
By Ray Paulick
There seems to be a belief among more than a few people in horse racing, including some trainers, that a state racing commission’s drug testing protocol goes something like this: Stewards call the testing lab and say, “The guy that won this race is a known cheater, and we don’t like him. Make sure you test his horse’s urine for everything under the sun.”
The sample subsequently arrives at the test laboratory with a big “cheater” sticker on it, and the lab technicians spend all of their waking hours testing it. Meanwhile, these same conspiracy theorists are convinced that some trainers never have their horses tested for drugs no matter how many races they win because they wear white hats and are given preferential treatment by stewards, racing commissions and chemists.
It reminds me of the old Smothers Brothers routine, “Mom Always Liked You Best.”
A number of trainers at Del Mar expressed the belief that former California Horse Racing Board executive director Ingrid Fermin has a bias against them and should not be allowed to judge races they are involved in from the steward’s stand. Others have said Fermin has a conflict of interest because her sister is married to trainer Bruce Headley.
We decided to ask a few questions about the protocol for drug testing in California to see just how easy it is to discriminate in the testing of post-race samples. Turns out these folks actually have a system to protect the integrity of the process.
Veterinarian Rick Arthur, equine medical director for the CHRB, told the Paulick Report: “We never alter the standard protocol for any test associated with a race sample. All samples are treated the same per the lab’s SOP. This is one of the advantages of having an accredited lab; all samples are treated the same and every step is documented to confirm that is the case. In rare instances we will go back on a sample if we have seen something suspicious in the lab or we have some intelligence, but that sample, once it has passed the SOP protocol, is considered cleared.
“Any special testing is done to improve the lab and testing protocol going forward,” Arthur said. “We have never filed a complaint on the rare sample that has received special attention after the sample has cleared. I doubt we ever would unless there were exceptional circumstances, i.e., the drug was something especially egregious–cobra or snail venom would be examples. Regardless, due to the documentation process required in accredited labs, any special attention to a sample is recorded and would be open to scrutiny if any regulatory action was taken.
“A few trainers who have had repeated problems with drug positives claim they have been targeted,” Arthur continued. “That is pure fantasy to deflect their personal responsibility for their drug violation records. Samples go into the lab as numbered samples and they are reported out by sample numbers. The sample custodian at CHRB headquarters in Sacramento has the paperwork that decodes the sample numbers to the horse and trainer. Only then does anyone know what sample is tied to what horse and trainer.
“Any trainer who thinks the system is corrupt overvalues their importance,” said Arthur. “Who is going to bother with a vast conspiracy involving multiple people at the CHRB and the University of California? Get real; no one cares. If someone is breaking the rules they will trip up sooner or later. We don’t need to go looking.”
Dr. Scott Stanley heads the Ken Maddy Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory at the University of California-Davis, the official lab for the CHRB. Stanley made a couple of additional points about California’s testing protocol.
“First, California also maintains a small portion of the original sample which can be used for retrospective testing,” said Stanley. “The retrospective samples are maintained for two years; while the lab still does not have the information on the horse or the trainer the CHRB can use these samples to identify new drugs or patterns for previously undetected drugs. Second, the testing scheme at UC Davis includes an extensive drug panel equal to or greater than most laboratory’s TOBA testing panel. All samples, from claiming races to graded stakes, receive the same test so there isn’t any one individual trainer or horse singled out or held to a different standard.”
Arthur said out-of-competition testing is somewhat different than post-race tests. “We will alter protocol depending on the circumstances, but again, all samples are treated the same. For example, we had intelligence of an andrenergic drug being used in Quarter horses. Besides testing for EPO in our out-of-competition samples we did additional testing for the rumored drug and other anabolic drugs. Usually we just concentrate on blood doping agents in our out-of-competition testing; the additional tests were a modification of protocol. FYI…the additional drugs we tested in the out-of-competition testing are covered in our standard race testing protocol.”
So, according to those most closely involved in California’s drug-testing procedures, there really isn’t the opportunity to discriminate. Not that the facts are ever going to change anyone’s mind.
By the way, I heard that the Smothers brothers’ mother didn’t play favorites, either.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.
Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: bruce headley, California Horse Racing Board, CHRB, cobra venom, drug testing, ingrid fermin, ken maddy equine analytical chemistry laboratory, ken maddy lab, out of competition testing, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, rick arthur, scott stanley, smothers brothers, snail venom Posted in California, California Horse Racing Board, Medication, Regulatory Issues, drug testing | 11 Comments »
Sunday, July 26th, 2009
By Ray PaulickThe California Horse Racing Board has created a potential mess by appointing its former executive director, Ingrid Fermin, as one of three individuals on the board of stewards during the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club meeting that began on Wednesday.
Fermin’s tenure as head of the state agency, which lasted three years, ended in 2007  when she said she did not want to relocate to Sacramento, home of the CHRB’s headquarters, as required by the board. There were several controversies and internal turmoil during her time as executive director, and some critics reportedly accused her of showing favoritism in appointments and contracts.
Foremost among those critics is owner Jerry Jamgotchian, who has filed several lawsuits against the CHRB, sent hundreds if not thousands of e-mails critical of Fermin, former CHRB chairman Richard Shapiro and others, and recently told the Paulick Report Fermin was “the most corrupt†executive director and steward in CHRB history.
When Fermin (pictured, left) was named one of three stewards for the Del Mar meeting, resuming a career she began in 1981 as the first female steward in California history, Jamgotchian requested a hearing with the CHRB to stop the appointment, saying that Fermin was biased against certain trainers and owners. The furor over the appointment ramped up when several trainers, including Mike Mitchell, Jeff Mullins, Art Sherman and Doug O’Neill, appealed to have Fermin recuse herself from judging races in which they have horses. There have been accusations that Fermin specifically targeted certain trainers in post-race drug testing while she was CHRB executive director. Fermin told the San Diego Union-Tribune the accuslations were “baseless” and “twisted.”
Jamgotchian’s complaint against Fermin stemmed from an incident in 2005 involving a horse owned by Jamgotchian that he wanted to scratch from a race at Del Mar. After a steward refused to allow the horse to be scratched, the horse ran and suffered an injury. UPDATE: While Jamgotchian has alleged that the horse, John’s Kinda Girl, was injured in that Aug. 14, 2005, race, the filly subsequently worked out three times over the next six weeks, and raced Oct. 7, 2005, and 12 more times in the next year, winning two of those races.
Jamgotchian’s request for a hearing before the Del Mar meet opened was denied when Fermin declined to attend. After the board met privately in executive session on Thursday, CHRB chairman John Harris said during the public portion of the regularly-scheduled monthly meeting that the stewards named for the Del Mar meeting would be retained. Harris also was board chairman when Fermin was appointed CHRB executive director in 2004.
Things appeared to change somewhat on Friday, however, when owner Martin Wygod, a member of the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club’s board of directors and one of the most influential owners in California racing, reportedly asked Fermin to recuse herself from presiding over a race in which one of his horses was running. According to a report in the North County Times, former jockey Luis Jaurequi, now a “safety steward,†would have substituted for Fermin in judging any inquiry or claim of foul involving one of Wygod’s horses in that race. Does that mean Fermin would have judged foul claims in the same race if they didn’t involve Wygod’s horse?
Wygod is believed to have been upset with Fermin ever since an incident involving 2-year-old champion Sweet Catomine at Santa Anita three years ago when the filly left the grounds for medical treatment prior to the Santa Anita Derby. Wygod was charged, following an investigation led by Fermin, with having the filly falsely identified when she was vanned out of the stable area and exhibiting conduct detrimental to racing. The charges, which could have resulted in Wygod having his owner’s license suspended, were dismissed following a hearing.
Jamgotchian, citing numerous sources, provided the following commentary about the reported request by Wygod to have Fermin recuse herself from presiding over Friday’s race in which Wygod’s horse ran: “On July 24, 2009, around noon,†Jamgotchian wrote in a widely distributed e-mail, “a ‘secret’ meeting was held in the Steward’s office at Del Mar. At this meeting,Ingrid Fermin agreed to recuse herself from Race No. 2 at Del Mar. Her recusal was made orally at the demand of owner Marty Wygod because he believed that Fermin has a known, actual and direct bias and prejudice against him because of the Sweet Catomine incident and various statements made about Wygod in the Frank Moore declaration dated July 14, 2009.â€
Jamgotchian went on to say that Wygod threatened to scratch his horse from the race if Fermin failed to recuse herself as a steward in that race. “Fermin agreed,†Jamgotchian wrote, “and her recusal was made in front of fellow Stewards Scott Chaney, Tom Ward and in the presence of other parties in the room, including Wygod.â€
Jamgotchian said he called Wygod’s attorney, Roger Licht, “to confirm the above facts regarding their recusal agreement with Fermin†and that Licht told him “there was an ‘oral’ confidentiality agreement in place with Fermin and that he could not discuss Fermin’s recusal.â€
Jamgotchian said he also tried unsuccessfully to speak with Fermin by telephone before the first race and said he intends to file a complaint with the CHRB regarding the “Wygod recusal†and demand an investigation by the CHRB because of what he called a “unilateral†decision and one that was not publicly disclosed.
If the North County Times article and Jamgotchian’s assertions are accurate, it appears either the CHRB or Fermin are applying a double standard when it comes to Fermin recusing herself from races in which the principals involved feel as though there is a bias by her against them. If she recused herself in a race involving Wygod, shouldn’t she do the same in races involving the trainers who have made similar appeals?
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.
Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
(UPDATED: SUNDAY, 5:15 P.M. , FIFTH PARAGRAPH)
Tags: art sherman, California Horse Racing Board, CHRB, del mar thoroughbred club, doug o'neill, Horse Racing, ingrid fermin, jeff mullins, jerry jamgotchian, john harris, luis jaurequi, martin wygod, mike mitchell, north county times, Paulick Report, racing stewards, Ray Paulick, roger licht Posted in California, California Horse Racing Board, Regulatory Issues, Stewards | 26 Comments »
Monday, March 9th, 2009
By Ray Paulick
Responding to complaints from racing secretaries that horses were being claimed in California races and immediately shipped out of state – often to tracks with purses enriched with slot machine revenue — the California Horse Racing Board in 2005 amended its rules to prohibit any claimed horse from racing outside of the state (except in a stakes race) until 60 days after the end of the meeting at which it was claimed.
The problem with the restrictive regulation, alleges horse owner Jerry Jamgotchian in a lawsuit filed on Monday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is that it is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Jamgotchian filed the action against the CHRB, its executive director, Kirk Breed, CHRB chairman John Harris and vice chairman David Israel.
Click here to read CHRB rule 1663. Click here for a copy of Jamgotchian’s lawsuit and attached exhibits.
Jamgotchian, no stranger to lawsuits against the CHRB, isn’t the only one who believes the section of CHRB rule 1663, prohibiting a horse claimed in California from racing out of state for an extended period of time, is unconstitutional. In 2003, when the proposed rule was discussed for at least the second time (it also was brought up in 2001), the state’s deputy attorney general, Derry L. Knight, provided informal advice to the board to the effect that the rule, if challenged, would be “found invalid as a violation of the Commerce Clause.”
“A California restriction on the out-of-state racing of a California-claimed horse would, as noted by the opponents of the suggested CHRB rule 1663 amendment, have a very direct extraterritorial effect on the owner of that animal,” the deputy attorney general wrote to then-executive director Roy Wood in September 2003. “Other states imposing similar, or perhaps conflicting, restrictions on the out-of-state racing of horses claimed in their states could lead to the very inconsistent projection of one state regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of another state that (the 1989 Supreme Court ruling, Heely v. Beer Institute) counsels the Commerce Clause is intended to prevent. … It would seem undeniable that the proposed 60-day post-race meeting prohibition of out-of-state racing of a California-claimed horse would have the effect of controlling commercial activity occurring wholly outside the boundary of the state.”
In other words, the rule restricts owners from doing what they feel is in the best interest of the horses they own, and places the CHRB in the position of dictating racing regulations to other states.
The CHRB has issued fines and suspensions against horsemen violating rule 1663. In a 2007 case, CHRB licensee Edgar Clarke was fined $6,000 and suspended 60 days for violating rule 1663. Other CHRB licensees have also had their horses scratched by CHRB officials in other states for violation of this rule.
Jamgotchian says he claimed a filly named Look Closely at Del Mar on Sept. 3, 2006, three days before the end of that track’s meeting, and entered her within the 60-day “jail time” in a race at Turf Paradise in Arizona on Oct. 27. Following a call to a Turf Paradise steward from Ingrid Fermin, then the executive director of the CHRB, Jamgotchian alleges, the filly was scratched because of the 60-day clause in rule 1663.
He said last month he is interested in the private purchase of a recently claimed horse for the purpose of sending it out of state and sought a clarification of the rule from the CHRB’s executive director.
Prior to filing the suit, an attorney retained by Jamgotchian sent a letter to the CHRB asking that the claiming rules be suspended in order for both parties to avoid litigation. The CHRB has not acted on that request.
Amending the rule so that horses could race out of state 60 days after being claimed (rather than 60 days after the close of the meeting at which they were claimed) was discussed at last month’s meeting of the CHRB. Staff analysis prepared for the discussion publicly disclosed the 2003 letter from the attorney general’s office for the first time. The vote to approve the restrictive clause came two years after the attorney general’s advised the CHRB that it was unconstitutional.
John Harris, a member of the board since 2000 and currently the CHRB’s chairman, mentioned potential legal problems with the rule when it was proposed at a 2001 board meeting. “We’re really dealing in interstate commerce, which is not really one of our expertise areas in the Racing Board,” Harris said at the time. “And we can get ourselves into trouble and run up a lot of legal bills and lose.”
Thoroughbred Owners of California opposed the restrictive rules proposed in 2001. Jim Ghidella, then with the TOC, commented: “We believe it is a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. I think any time you put a restrictive covenant on property, any kind of property … you lessen the value.”
The proposal came up again in July 2003 when trainer Roger Stein spoke at a board meeting in support of the restrictions. Stein said he claimed numerous horses at Emerald Downs in Washington to send to California, and Washington regulators quickly put in restrictive rules to prevent that from happening again. No action was taken by the CHRB at the July 2003 meeting, and only three months later the board received the opinion from the deputy attorney general.
In 2005, however, after racing secretaries again said horses were being claimed to be sent out of state, the board approved the new restrictions to claiming rules. Harris again commented that “it could be argued on an interstate commerce issue that we’re trampling on that.”
When discussions to change the claiming rule were held last month, CHRB member Jesse Choper, the Earl Warren professor of public law at the University of California school of law, said he agreed with the position taken by the attorney general’s office in 2003. Still Choper said the board “ought to stick with (rule 1663) until someone challenges it …”
“Until we get caught – I mean, challenged,” Harris interjected, drawing some laughter. “Yeah,” said Choper.
“Caught’s kind of a severe term,” Harris added. “But, I mean, that’s what it really amounts to, which is the one reason I was leaning toward a lesser period of time, because that lessens the challenges that might be out there.”
Jamgotchian, who recently won another legal battle against the CHRB in the court of appeals concerning the role of stewards, seems more than willing to offer that challenge. His action seeks the rule be overturned and that he be reimbursed for the cost of the suit, including attorney’s fees.
“We believe that the Federal Court will send a clear message to the CHRB to strike this oppressive rule and hope that by eliminating this rule many recently claimed horses from other states will relocate to California,” Jamgotchian said in a press release.
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.
Tags: California Horse Racing Board, CHRB, claiming restrictions, commerce clause of the U.S. constitution, david israel, derry l. knight, edgar clarke, ingrid fermin, jamgotchian, jerry jamgotchian, jesse choper, jim ghidella, john harris, kirk breed, roger stein, roy wood, rule 1663, thoroughbred owners of california, toc Posted in California, California Horse Racing Board, Regulatory Issues, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »
|
|