Gorajec: Barr-Tonko Bill Only Path Toward Uniformity

by | 10.15.2015 | 7:57am

The following commentary was written by Joe Gorajec, who on Saturday was relieved of his job as executive director of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission (IHRC), a position he held for nearly 25 years.

The commentary, which Gorajec intended for publication when written, was shared with Indiana commissioners in August with a clearly stated caveat that it represented his personal viewpoint, and not that of the IHRC or its individual members. 

Gorajec was advised, in no uncertain terms, that he was not to have the article published.

Having been the executive director of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission since 1990, I have been on the frontline of regulatory policy and enforcement, both in Indiana and nationally, for the past 25 years.

During this time I have seen substantial efforts – with mixed results – to improve uniformity in drug testing and penalties for positive tests. I have also witnessed a largely inadequate, milquetoast response to emerging threats to racing's integrity. Most significant among these threats are blood-doping agents and other drugs that require an extensive out-of-competition program for detection.

I believe the threat to the integrity of our sport is greater now than it was 25 years ago.

We are in this predicament because we lack central governance for drug testing and penalties for violations, which, of course, all other major sports have.

We have been promised and have held out hope that uniformity was achievable and just around the corner. It is not achievable, nor is it around the corner, so you can stop waiting. Uniformity under our current regulatory structure is a mirage.

Lack of uniformity does not equate to lack of effort. In a nutshell, uniformity is incompatible with the current structure of individual state prerogatives. Try as we might, we cannot and will not get to our desired level of uniformity with our existing regulatory structure. Once we acknowledge this, it will be much easier to choose a new path leading to true national uniformity.

It should be noted that state regulators (i.e. Commissions) did not create the current model. They inherited it. This occurred decades ago when state legislatures bequeathed to racing commissions the authority and responsibility for equine drug testing.

This lack of uniformity has always been an issue, but emerging threats have made us much more susceptible to the designs of those who cheat. While these threats have increased, racing has become more globalized and the internet has rapidly spread all the shortcomings of our sport into consciousness of our dwindling fan base – and potential new fans.

I was born in Chicopee, Mass., in 1958. In that year, the four major Thoroughbred New England race tracks – Rockingham Park, Suffolk Downs, Narragansett Park and Lincoln Downs – drew 2,680,412 fans to the track. By comparison, that same year, the combined attendance for the Boston Red Sox, Bruins and Celtics was 2,168,412.

All these tracks are nothing but memories, except for Suffolk, which is scheduled to race three days this year. The reasons for the decline of Thoroughbred racing are many. I believe most people will agree that the foundation upon which we must build our sport moving forward is integrity. Our current structure of state prerogatives as it relates to drug testing and penalties has failed to provide this foundation.

For these reasons, I support the Barr-Tonko bill. It places the United States Anti Doping Agency (USADA) in a position to do virtually overnight what the racing industry has been incapable of doing over decades – mandate uniformity in drug testing, procedures and penalties. (Aug. 24, 2015)

Joe Gorajec served as executive director of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission and past chairman of the Association of Racing Commissioners International (RCI). The opinions herein are solely the opinions of the author and do not represent the opinions of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission.

  • Jay Stone

    It is refreshing to see an ex state regulatory official say what we’ve all known for years. The states are incapable of controlling the problems now faced by racing and an independent authority such as USADA must be granted control of medication standards and strict enforcement of rules. It is a brave stance that Mr. Gorajec has taken and he should be applauded for it.

    • Ben van den Brink

      ditto

    • Ernest Vincent

      The Feds involvement with each state’s education program has caused uproar to the point of ridding Washington of the Education Department.

      • Chancey Gardner

        That is quite different: the testing programs were designed to allow private enterprise to profit from education. This is not about handing your brother a billion dollar Federal contract to print tests.

        • Ernest Vincent

          You definitely do not live in New York State. I am referring to just about all schools and almost to a teacher and school administrations finding Fed mandates adversely impacting the educational programs of a state. (however again, my comment is about the horse racing factor and government putting together programs that have to work, once they are down in the reality level)

          By the way, an attorney in the horse business on this thread says most states ‘Do’ want the feds to get involved and enforcement would not have much push-back on many levels.
          Intuitively, that makes sense as the states of NY and Ky are involved in one bill, and they (Congress reps) certainly would have the support of their State and the interests and wishes of their states respectively.

          • lastromantribune

            I am in NY and agree

          • Of course the states don’t want the bill because it marginalizes them to a certain extent and, based on their record with drug enforcement, they need to be marginalized.

          • Ernest Vincent

            This is exactly what I have been saying and thought (for myself) that the states would not want to have their powers and control diminished.
            And that would go for about everything.

          • Ben van den Brink

            A total cut off from the commissions would be the best, as It comes down to political approved members.

          • Ben van den Brink

            Political appointed members in most cases.

          • lastromantribune

            well stated

          • Chancey Gardner

            And those Federal programs were inforced in order for private enterprise to start profiting off of what had successfully been a government program that ran quite well without all the meddling.

  • Alex

    “Joe Gorajec, who on Saturday was relieved
    of his job as executive director of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission (IHRC), a position he held for nearly 25 years “.
    Relieved? That’s a nice way of saying Gorajec was fired.

    • Tinky

      Quit complaining and go spend some the of wealth created by Quantitative Easing that trickled down to you.

    • Ernest Vincent

      No one of political connection actually gets fired from a not-for-profit or government job, commission etc. I’ll bet his severance ‘dismissal’ (only Donald Trump say Fired!) is more than the total savings of 80% of those who bet on a horse in that state this year.
      The powers that be will have another spot for him. Aptly, it is called another position. Depending where this guy is in his life career vs retirement etc. He probably ‘got a sweetened package of bennies going out this way. There is no severance required by law if one is fired for cause in most states. Tribes take care of their own. In and out. Sideways, backwards.

      • Chancey Gardner

        How inaccurate! He’s NOT a Wall Street CEO, or Hewlett-Packard exec who can run the company into the ground and parachute away with 100s of millions. Get real.

        • Ernest Vincent

          I have never worked for a non-profit. Nor a government agency for an income and benefits. But I do know salary grades for jobs, pensions and benefits across the board.

          But here in New York State with the pay structure and retirement benefits of a person with 25 years in such a position (this is regardless of the horse issues and it’s not about that) he’s going to get his bone in his exit.

          We’ll have to see where he goes for the 2nd part of my statement. I’d say UP!

          Where was the Wall Street part? I missed that. Reads to me like a person employed by a commission of a/the state.
          No he is not a Wall Street CEO. I’m speaking to the job he has and had, his tenure with the state and please read the comment to what I was addressing.

          As for a politically implicated position, in most states, I can’t say all, this is how it works most states.

          The man (joe) earns $105,028.30/yr. Please read my response after reading the comment I was responding to.
          Thanks. My statements are that with 25 yrs of service (and regardless of any tiffs) based on his earnings, yrs of service, for the record they proly didn’t fire him as that poster questioned.

          • Chancey Gardner

            Which is about 5 minutes of what the compensation of a hedge fund manger is… why do people have a problem with critical government jobs being paid a decent wage? Enough of the Faux “News” regurgitation, already!

  • Racing Fan

    Two bonus points for using the bequeathed. And yes, the national horseman groups just don’t get it. The facts are large bettors have left for two primary reasons only. 1.) Takeout is lower by wagering on fantasy sports, slot machines and really anything other than horse racing and 2.) The sport is the wild west in terms of governance and can’t be trusted. When a trainer who was a landscaper for Sal Sinatra in 2011 comes onto the scene and fires at 35% his first year training, you do not have the second coming of Charlie Whittingham, instead you have a cheat in my opinion. Someone needs to trim the hedges of thoroughbred racing in a big way.

  • GarlandTex

    Anyone who believes that the Feds can handle this better than racing itself is living in the same liberal dream world as those who thought Obama care was a good idea. Let the Feds get their foot in the door and they will create a BUREAUCRACY that will have their hands into all respects of racing within 10 years. I know something has to be done, but the Feds are not the answer. To thimk of the taxes they will impose alone to fund this program is enough for me to say NO!

    • The feds already control racing through the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978. Take away that legislation and racing as we know it ceases to exist. Further, whether it is the Tonko/Barr bill or other reform legislation that is passed, the US Anti-Doping Agency, an independent entity, will be supervising drug testing and enforcement, not the federal government. I applaud Mr. Gorajec’s support for federal legislation in general since he recognizes our broken system must be fixed. Given that his position is adverse to the ARCI’s which wants to maintain the status quo, it took some backbone to stand up for his position. It just goes to show you what kind of campaigns those opposed to change are willing to wage against reformation.

      • Hamish

        No way of knowing for certain what groups or individuals were behind the campaign to remove Joe, yet. That type of “stuff” always come out at some point, so then it will be interesting to know who some of the biggest status quo mongers in the game might be. “They” are the problem that’s taking this game down, not folks like Joe Garojec.

        • Chancey Gardner

          Oh, I think they make themselves well known, and yes, I agree – they are THE problem with the death of racing.

      • Ernest Vincent

        How do they make states comply if voted in?
        Do you think the states with racing will lobby to Congress to veto or vote for/yes?

        How does the burden of new cost, admin and record keeping, registration fees, audits ……………?

        • States with racing support reform legislation, though they can’t agree on which one (Pitts & Udall v. Tonko [NY] & Barr). If the states don’t comply, then under the IHA they are stripped of their rights to carry interstate signals. That obviously would be bad for business and is the stick needed for enforcement. Under the two bills, the states would be responsible for establishing the fees charged to pay for administration and enforcement. It likely would be a fee per license or a fee per start.

          • youcantmakeitup

            I agree with you but would also add that if the states don`t comply then take the slot subsidies away. There are thousands of businesses who would love to get some help and most likely create jobs that pay well. There are also school districts who are short on funds and schools that are crumbling. In 2014, Delaware Park paid out 14 million in purses , of which 12 million came from slots. That doesn’t look like a successful business model. Some horsemen think they are entitled to this money.

    • KARL Bittner

      Like I have posted before this is not a federal takeover. More negative comments on something you obviously have no understanding of.

    • Concerned Observer

      Like the Feds have screwed up the Food and Drug administration, or the Center for Disease Control, or National Weather Service, or the Federal Aviation Administration or the Interstate Highway system? Lets be serious. Doing each of those tasks 50 times would be a giant waste of expertise and dollars.And would probably greatly reduce effectiveness and our safety.. Fed bashing is oh so easy, but in reality who thinks 50 corrupt and bloated and redundant state bureaucracies is preferable to one? As one poster has pointed out, the feds are now involved in education, but he failed to add, that the state that was previously ranked 48th in level of education is still 48th and damn proud of their accomplishment..before and after the feds.

      With college football in full swing, should we switch to different game rules state by state?

      Walmart and McDonald’s do not have 50 separate state by state business models, accounting systems, computer systems or store designs…they had that option but saw no reason for it.

      • Chancey Gardner

        She/He is taught Fed-bashing on the TV – simple parroting

    • lastromantribune

      beg to differ Obama care is a train wreck …no argument there….and I don’t even know how to make a left turn I am so right minded…lmao….but in this case the FEDS need to take care of things…rampant cheating all over the place….the mentality of “if your not cheating your not trying is prevalent in racing…sorry as that seems and it tarnish’s the ones that play fair.

  • Charles Smith

    If Mr.Gorajec says it, it’s good enough for me. For a quarter century, Joe Gorajec stood for integrity in horse racing in the Hoosier State. Shame on the powers that be in Indiana for relieving him of his duties.

  • Chancey Gardner

    “…Most significant among these threats are blood-doping agents and other drugs that require an extensive out-of-competition program for detection…”
    And that is what the cheaters are most afraid of. Please stop the tin-foil hat comments when people point out the obvious patterns of its usage.

    • Edzepplin

      Out of competition was determined To be unconstitutional in New York. The court agreed the agency posesses broad statutory powers but they also determine the agency did not have “unfettered” power to mandate testing outside of a regulated facility. Any attempt to require out of competition in fed legislation would likely face stiff U.S constitutional based challenge. This could result in the bill dying this year and subsequent future attempts.

      • Ben van den Brink

        In the UK 10% from it,s budget for testing goes to out of competion testing, And no complaints how ever.

        • Edzepplin

          Remember the U.S. constitution and bill of rights were created as a direct result of disagreeing with the now UK on how to govern and regulate us. We Yanks love the protection it garantees us vs. Government .

          • KARL Bittner

            If you can test humans out of competition, you can test horses. You ever heard of the FEI? They already do it.

          • KARL Bittner

            All copied from the FEI rule book –

            All Horses registered with the FEI or a National Federation shall be subject to intelligence based Out-of-Competition Testing by the FEI. Nothing in these Rules shall preclude any National Federation from adopting its own Out-ofCompetition Testing protocols, subject to Article 13.1.

            Nothing in these EAD Rules shall be
            interpreted to prevent a National Federation from conducting out-ofcompetition
            testing on national Horses as part of its national Doping Control.

          • Edzepplin

            I don’t believe the FEI is a government agency. There are different standards for Government rules and regs. vs. non government organizations

          • KARL Bittner

            USADA is a non government organization.

          • Edzepplin

            Ok thanks.

          • togahombre

            currently gets 60% of their funding from a federal anti-drug grant, on my side of the street that’s a silent partner, at the current $ level of testing alone nationwide applied to their budget the level of funding that was due to federal mandate would be at over 90%, when congressman ( fill in the blank) calls do you think he gets put on hold? tygard would probably go to his house every night just to fluff his pillows, i’m all for reform but this is along the lines of shopping while your hungry

          • KARL Bittner

            Read the bill. 100% funded by racing. The last thing the feds need to do is start funding drug testing for horse racing. I don’t think they could even get that up for a vote considering the tone in Washington these days. Are you questioning the integrity of Tygard after the crap he went through taking down Lance Armstrong? I believe his integrity is beyond reproach. Every time you naysayers come up with a reason it can’t be done it’s based on false and misleading information. I have to question what side of this you people are on because I can only see the up sides. If we were shopping when we were hungry we would have starved to death by now. Every major SUCCESSFUL sports entity in this country has benefited by a central governing body. Now I realize this falls way short of that, but it’s a step in the right direction. And as we have seen they are not always perfect note the recent NFL issues. But you have to take a stand somewhere. At this point either you want racing cleaned up or you don’t.

          • togahombre

            when this approach was first floated the enforcement and testing was proposed to be handled by an organization ‘similar’ to usada, that evolved into what we have now, usada or usada, i don’t care how shiny tygards halo is; someone with a washington sugar daddy is hardly independent, and giving such an outfit this kind of authority over ones affairs ( which no SUCCESSFUL sport entity would ever allow) is an extremely poor decision

          • KARL Bittner

            Sugar daddy what??? The organization will be USADA. Read the bill . Educate yourself. What your saying is no one can be trusted. USADA is a first rate organization beholden to no one. You sound like one of those people who are not interested in any sort of attempt at correcting an issue that is killing my sport. FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO DO. Maybe fantasy sports. The FBI has a probe going on with them. Maybe your comfortable in that corrupt world. Lions, tigers, and bears, OH MY!

          • togahombre

            speaking as someone that has conducted their business in the private sector their whole adult life i’ve yet to come across someone that welcomed govt involvement in their business and didn’t later regret it, besides that; people disagree all the time, how each one of them handles it speaks volumes

          • Chancey Gardner

            Amen – No fence sitting! You cannot claim to be for clean racing and then back the cheaters. There are clearly defined lines on this.

          • Chancey Gardner

            He probably hasn’t a clue.

          • Ben van den Brink

            Nobody is gooiing to fight that off as every one likes to see, integrity and level playing fields.

          • KARL Bittner

            I guess the FEI rule book shoots down any constitutional challege.

          • Edzepplin

            Non government rules and regulation do not trump the constitution.

          • KARL Bittner

            Your constitutional argument does not hold water.

          • Ben van den Brink

            If you are not co operating no problem, only your license is gooiing to be withheld.

          • Chancey Gardner

            Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

          • Edzepplin

            With all due respect, It has everything to do with the topic. If out of competition was declared unconstitutional in NY, similar and other U.S. constitutional arguments will remain with Federal legislation. Like article 1 section 8 which defines “Federalism”. The constitutional sharing of power between state and local government.

          • Hamish

            Was out of comp testing declared unconstitutional by a NY state court or a federal district court?

          • Edzepplin

            The issue was ultimately decided by the NY Supreme Court. The bill is a U.S. Congressional effort and will more than likely challenged on states rights basis’s. My sources tell me this bill has a low probability of going anywhere this year.

      • KARL Bittner

        There is nothing that guarantees those that don’t want to be tested that they participate in a race covered by the Interstate horse racing act of 1978. No interstate wagering = no racing. Besides it’s USADA that will be in charge. A non profit, non government organization. The rules to be made up by a combination of people inside the industry, people who understand testing protocols, and so on and so forth. USADA is the same group that does all the Olympic testing. It’s a world class organization recognized for their success in eliminating drug use on that level. I’m not sure how many more times I can possibly educate people on this.

        • Edzepplin

          I understand the language and I support USADA and the uniformity of rules and penalties. However, the difference I see between USADA providing testing and protocols for private athletic organizations to use to enforce it’s regulations and USADA providing the same services for our government via the public policy process is that Congress must vet the constitutionality of all legislation. Private organizations only have to vet their actions in this area via their private by Laws.

          • KARL Bittner

            Read below. Already being done. Besides, you can’t possibly be recommending the status quo. If you are your asking for the slow destruction of the sport I love then I wish you would find something else to do with your time. No option is 100% perfect but this maybe as close as we can get.

          • Edzepplin

            You should re read my post. I support standardization of rules and penalties, regulations between states. I think we have taken our conversation about as far as we can. Thanks. LOL

          • Chancey Gardner

            There is NO standardization of rules and meds “between states” – a pipe dream if there ever was one. You are NOT self-regulating. So you want standardization? Then get on board with the USADA.

          • Edzepplin

            Try re reading my posts. I have Supported the USADA utilization from my 1st posts. I disagree that out of competition testing is the only way to deal with blood doping. I would be interested reading USADA’s response that Out of competition testing is the only way to detect blood doping.

          • Chancey Gardner

            How Lance Armstrong avoided detection of his doping, per the NYT:
            “…The techniques Usada says were used by Armstrong and his teammates to elude positive tests were used by many cyclists, and many believe those tactics are still in use today. They often exploited weaknesses in the antidoping system, many of which still persist..

            The most basic technique outlined in the report, based on affidavits from some of Armstrong’s former teammates, was simply running away or hiding…..”

            Are you getting the picture, now?

        • Edzepplin

          As far as the effectiveness of the interstate simulcast laws in todays Racino business model era, It does not have the same financial weight it had before alternative gaming.The revenues from alternative gaming is life blood for tracks and purses in states with simulcasting only but compared to alternative gaming revenues; it is not close. The hammer is not a large as it used to be.

          • KARL Bittner

            So I guess NYRA would risk millions and millions of dollars in handle just to avoid USADA? We have a better chance of seeing Jesus Christ as the jockey on a horse at Breeders cup!

          • Edzepplin

            Probably not but the point I was making is that racing would not cease in most states as you proclaimed.

          • KARL Bittner

            No it won’t because they would all submit to this new level of oversight. It would be suicide not to.

      • So are you in favor of out of competition testing as a means of catching cheaters?

        • Edzepplin

          I am not for several reasons but here are the primary ones. First of all, I believe the current testing methods by USADA that measure levels of substances in pico-grams is sufficient to detect PED’s and doping from in competition sampling. Secondly I subscribe to libertarian principles that protect citizens from unnecessary intrusions on private property by government agencies.

          • Chancey Gardner

            Private property, like a race horse, that is then used to bilk the betting public? Fine – you want to have your private horse, with no testing, then don’t race it. No prob.

          • Edzepplin

            When using the term private property, I am referring to real estate where one is domiciled away from regulated facilities.

          • Chancey Gardner

            Yes! Where you can van your horses away from the track to administer shockwave therapy before a race. We are aware of the concept.

          • Edzepplin

            Pre race and post race testing is performed at the tracks on horses participating in racing.

          • Chancey Gardner

            But NOT the comprehensive testing that would negate the usage of blood doping, Ed and that is what we are talking about.

          • About time the betting public had some training bills drop through their letterboxes.

          • Racing Fan

            Except racing participants are PARTICIPATING in pari-mutual racing. LOL. Poor logic on many levels.

          • Edzepplin

            I suggest you take it up with the NY Supreme court.

      • Edzepplin

        To clarify, the NY supreme court ruling centered on NY’s authority and jurisdiction to request horses located in states other than NY to be tested.

        • Chancey Gardner

          And Federal law would take precedence … sigh

  • Richard C

    Telling the truth remains a perilous path in the glorious Sport of Kings.

    • Racing Fan

      You hit the nail on the head. The powerful and influential in racing will figure out a way to shut up or take the livelihood away from those who speak the truth.

      • Hamish

        Agreed, that’s what they do. Status quo mongers, representatives of this influential curse of the old guard, refuse to acknowledge what the real current state of racing affairs actually looks like. If they speak up or take any contrary position to the authority, it may cost them a box seat at Saratoga or an invitation to the next high powered cocktail party. Herein lies the underlying problem and the primary reason they ganged up on a guy like Garojec. They are trying to save their own butts at the expense of our sport. In the end, this small minded approach, perpetuated by gang like thinking will not win, it will be set aside, defeated once and for all and maybe, just maybe, horse racing survives.

        • lastromantribune

          Status quo will insure a slow death for racing…that is for sure.

          • OTB ensured its slow death. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

    • Like Christianity, it has rarely been tried!

    • 4Bellwether666

      And a ton of Nations on this planet past and present…Barr-Tonko Bill passage sure can’t hurt ‘The Game’ in it’s present state of outta control drug use/race fixing and animal abuse…

  • Due Process

    Just off his firing for driving the Indiana-bred program into the ground (and assorted other indiscretions), I hardly see Joe Gorajec as a voice to be listened to. It’s like listening to Herbert Hoover advise about how to avoid a depression.

    • Racing Fan

      Hardly. Poor analogy by the way.

    • Ben van den Brink

      Better high quality and full integrity, than the kind of rubbish shown in different states in th USA.

  • morethanready

    Joe, I think you have done an outstanding work with the part of your job that you have chosen to focus on. You should have an important role with the USADA if the bill becomes law. However I think it is disingenuous to suggest that a track like Rockingham is a ‘lack of integrity’ casualty. The products you mentioned and several others could not survive the advent of simulcasting. The sport cannot afford to concentrate on just one aspect. I’d be far more enthused with a national marketing campaign that would rival what has made Fanduel or Draft Kings household names.

    • MLS

      Problem is he was a dictator in implementing it….you cannot have a person be enforcement, judge and jury when dealing with people….

      • morethanready

        I hear you and I believe there is a culture within racing that endorses it. I was particularly disappointed with his auditing of the lab and embarrassing them publicly- rather than challenging them behind closed doors.

  • MLS

    These two paragraphs gives you a glimpse on how Gorajec does business….

    “The commentary, which Gorajec intended for publication when written, was shared with Indiana commissioners in August with a clearly stated caveat that it represented his personal viewpoint, and not that of the IHRC or its individual members.

    Gorajec was advised, in no uncertain terms, that he was not to have the article published,”

    • Chancey Gardner

      Yes – thank God!! he stands up to the power and states the obvious anyway. Good for him.

      • Edzepplin

        Chancey. You really don’t know how he operates. He can no longer be trusted with significant power. His past performance of abuse of his power is well known with his fellow regulators. His intent may have been honorable, but as my Grandfather (former state supreme court chief justice) used to tell me ” The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

        • And grandfathers DO know stuff – despite what the present day thinks!

        • Chancey Gardner

          Ed – you are the man who posts and then desperately replies to himself – twice. Try this – allow someone else their opinion. We ALREADY know your position. Thanks

          • Perhaps no worse than not replying when a theory has been debunked?

          • Chancey Gardner

            What “theory” are you referring to, Bill?

          • Just a general observation that listers, unlike Edzepplin, too often make [silly – or very subjective] claims and then vanish when they get a question in response. In fact everyone debating this particular issue ignores one very basic problem: the doping situation in America will never be resolved as long as the majority of owners continue to believe that racehorses need a great deal of veterinary assistance, legal or illegal. Until that changes it makes no difference whether the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Dalai Lama is in charge of regulation – no-one can see the wood for the trees. Although either of those worthies would likely attempt to lead their flock towards their goal rather than scatter them as seems [to me] to have been the case with Mr. Gorajek.

          • Edzepplin

            Sorry. I thought I was adding additional information to be considered by those might be forming an opinion.

          • Chancey Gardner

            Well, I guess some folks like to have the propaganda catapulted so they can remember it…

  • Sandi York

    You have to question the parties who object to the basic tenet of free speech.

  • Guest

    Chuckling at the use of “milquetoast” in a horse racing article! Haven’t seen that word since the SATs.

  • Edzepplin

    Request To Modify ‘Out-of-Competition Testing’ Rules
    This request to the Indiana Horse Racing Commission is fairly self-explanatory as far as the inconsistencies in the ‘out-of-competition’ testing administrative rules when compared to their own definitions.

    “Pursuant to ‘71 IAC 2-12-1 Procedures,’ Indiana Breeder & Owner Protection, Inc. (IBOP) is requesting that the Indiana Horse Racing Commission (IHRC) consider the amendment of 71 IAC 8-3-5(e) and 71 IAC 8.5-2-5(e) to conform with their respective definitions in 71 IAC 1-1-67.5 and 71 IAC 1.5-1-67.5. Please consider this correspondence as IBOP’s petition for the IHRC to amend both subsections of the administrative rules cited above, which are part of the ‘Out of competition testing’ rules. Our view is that both of these subsections include language beyond the IHRC’s own definition of its authority and jurisdiction. IBOP would appreciate the changes to these rules be considered as an agenda item at the next regularly scheduled IHRC meeting on August 30, 2012.

    At the June 25, 2012, IHRC meeting, 71 IAC 1-1-67.5 was amended, and to correct an oversight in the rule books, 71 IAC 1.5-1-67.5 was added. Both emergency rules, which are copied below, went into effect when submitted to the Indiana Register on July 5, 2012.

    71 IAC 1-1-67.5 “Out of competition testing” defined
    Authority: IC 4-31-3-9
    Affected: IC 4-31

    Sec. 67.5. “Out of competition testing” means a test conducted by the commission on a horse located in Indiana as provided in 71 IAC 8-3-5. (Indiana Horse Racing Commission; 71 IAC 1-1-67.5; emergency rule filed Jul 23, 2007, 9:16 a.m.: 20070808-
    IR-071070461ERA, eff Jul 18, 2007 [IC 4-22-2-37.1 establishes the effectiveness of an emergency rule upon filing with the Publisher. LSA Document #07-461(E) was filed with the Publisher July 23, 2007.]; emergency rule filed Jul 5, 2012, 2:14 p.m.: 20120718-IR-071120402ERA)

    71 IAC 1.5-1-67.5 “Out of competition testing” defined
    Authority: IC 4-31-3-9
    Affected: IC 4-31

    Sec. 67.5. “Out of competition testing” means a test conducted by the commission on a horse located in Indiana as provided in 71 IAC 8.5-2-5. (Indiana Horse Racing Commission; 71 IAC 1.5-1-67.5; emergency rule filed Jul 5, 2012, 2:14 p.m.: 20120718-IR-071120402ERA)

    Both of these two “Out of competition testing” definitions contain the phrase “on a horse located in Indiana” then provides a reference to the specific administrative rule based upon the breed of the horse. Both 71 IAC 8-3-5(e) and 71 IAC 8.5-2-5(e) contain the phrase “or its designees, in the case of out-of-state collections” which is an indication of the belief that the IHRC can compel out of competition testing on a horse stabled outside of the State of Indiana. IBOP’s petition is to amend each administrative rule by striking the language “or its designees, in the case of out-of-state collections” from each rule. The language used in 71 IAC 8-3-5(e) and 71 IAC 8.5-2-5(e) is contrary to the IHRC’s own definitions for out of competing testing which limits said authority to within Indiana and not beyond.

    In further support of IBOP’s petition, both 71 IAC 1-1-52 and 71 IAC 1.5-1-50 which define the IHRC’s “jurisdiction” limit that jurisdiction to “the state of Indiana.” Both 71 IAC 1-1-52 and 71 IAC 1.5-1-50 are copied below:

    71 IAC 1-1-52 “Jurisdiction” defined
    Authority: IC 4-31-3-9
    Affected: IC 4-31

    Sec. 52. “Jurisdiction” of the commission means the state of Indiana. (Indiana Horse Racing Commission; 71 IAC 1-1-52; emergency rule filed Feb 10, 1994, 9:20 a.m.: 17 IR 1118; readopted filed Oct 30, 2001, 11:50 a.m.: 25 IR 899; readopted filed Mar 23, 2007, 11:31 a.m.: 20070404-IR-071070030RFA)

    71 IAC 1.5-1-50 “Jurisdiction” defined
    Authority: IC 4-31-3-9
    Affected: IC 4-31

    Sec. 50. “Jurisdiction” of the commission means the state of Indiana. (Indiana Horse Racing Commission; 71 IAC 1.5-1-50; emergency rule filed Jun 15, 1995, 5:00 p.m.: 18 IR 2819, eff Jul 1, 1995; readopted filed Oct 30, 2001, 11:50 a.m.: 25 IR 899; readopted filed Mar 23, 2007, 11:31 a.m.: 20070404-IR-071070030RFA)

    In this petition, both 71 IAC 8-3-5(e) and 71 IAC 8.5-2-5(e) were not copied in their entirety for the sake of brevity. Thank you for your consideration of this petition.

    • Edzepplin

      Indiana Breeder and Owner Protection, Inc.September 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM
      At the Indiana Horse Racing Commission meeting on August 30th, the commissioners voted unanimously to remove the language “or its designees, in the case of out-of-state collections” from both out-of-competition testing rules. IBOP views this as a step in the right direction to conform the out-of-competition testing rules to what is actually authorized by Indiana statute

      • Edzepplin

        I used the out of competition testing case as an example of his willingness to get his way by adding a provision to allow for out of competition even though the jurisdiction is confined to in state horses only.
        A lot of people have used the word integrity when describing him on this site. Does a person willing to write regulations in such a misleading fashion to get what he wants deserve to be described as a man of integrity ?

        • KARL Bittner

          I’m scratching my head trying to figure out what exactly is your point to all this. Are you trying to discredit Gorajec or the Barr – Tonko bill? Or both? Once and for all please do the following.

          A) Read the bill from top to bottom. Without knowing what’s in it your speaking from an uninformed point of view. Simple. You can find it word for word online.

          B) After reading it answer the following questions. When answering these questions do not interject the one thousand things you think could go wrong by what is not there. Take it at face value for what is written and how it will be carried out.

          1) Does it clearly indicate what horses will participate?
          2) Does it clearly indicate why these horses will have to participate?
          3) Who will be responsible for determining what drugs are legitimate and which ones are not and at what levels.

          • Edzepplin

            Intelligent people understand. You don’t. I wont waste my time

          • KARL Bittner

            That’s right! If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I’m willing to bet you haven’t even looked at the bill which is just as well. Facts mean nothing to you, I know the type.

  • lastromantribune

    don’t rock the boat…don’t rock the boat baby.. it seems that cockroaches run racing…..they all run for cover.

Twitter Twitter
Paulick Report on Instagram