Gagliano: Yes. And, as you know, by virtue of his
many years of experience in this arena and his positionof authority as chairman of this internationalorganization, Louis does have a great deal of influence.
There is no question that he cares deeply about the
sport of Thoroughbred racing and I hold him in thehighest esteem, personally and professionally.
In this second of a two-part interview with industry
leaders regarding International Federation ofHorseracing Authorities Chairman Louis Romanet's
pledge to eliminate race-day drugs from Graded races
worldwide, Barry Irwin talks to Jim Gagliano (Presidentand COO of The Jockey Club), Dan Metzger (Presidentof the Thoroughbred Owners and BreedersAssociation), Carl Hamilton (Chairman of The Jockey
Club Information Systems) and Matt Iuliano (ExecutiveV.P. and Executive Director of The Jockey Club). As
the 30th Breeders' Cup dawns fast on the horizon, it isnothing if not apropos that the discussion revolves
around strategies to bring North American racing in linewith the vast majority of other jurisdictions in terms ofuniform medication rules for Graded races.
Irwin: The Jockey Club is a member of the IFHA, but
unlike members from European countries, our Jockey
Club cannot conduct racing or impose national rules.
What positive impact do you think Louis Romanet, ashead of the IFHA, can have to move the ball towardeliminating race-day drugs in Graded races?
Gagliano: First of all, I think it's important to note what
the IFHA is and is not. It is an organization ofindependent racing
authorities that cometogether to promote bestpractices and to work
toward harmonization
wherever they can. What
IFHA is not is a regulatory
authority. It does not havethe power to impose rules
on specific nations. All welook to do, with theexecutive council and themembership, is to identify aset of common principles,
which are embodied within
the articles of theInternational Agreement ofracing, breeding and
Jim Gagliano at the 2013
wagering, and try to haveas many states and nations
Jockey Club Round Tableor organizations sign on to
those articles specifically. For example, there are
significant parts of the articles to which the UnitedStates is not a signatory.
Barry: What do you think Chairman Romanet
specifically is capable of doing to move the ball? Is it
basically restricted to trying to influence as best hecan?

Barry: The Jockey Club has no authority to impose oralter federal or state rules for racing, but it does have
the Stud Book, which could be a powerful tool in
restricting registration of horses. Has The Jockey Club
ever thought about using Germany's Stud Book
restrictions as a template to control the use of drugs inAmerican racing as a means of protecting the breed?
Gagliano: In Germany, as I understand it, it's not
restrictions within their Stud Book but rather
restrictions within their breeders awards program. The
way that their breeders awards are established requires
certain medication restrictions while racing in order for
those horses to be eligible to receive awards orpremiums. So it=s really not the Stud Book regulating
medication policy in Germany. Here in North America,
we do reserve the right to refuse to do business withcertain persons. If, for example, an individual is foundto have violated a medication rule that involves aprohibited substance such as an RCI class 1 drug, ourRule 19 enables The Jockey Club to deny that person
the privileges to conduct registration-related businesswith The Jockey Club.
Barry: An Irish member of the IRPAC (InternationalGrading and Race Planning Advisory Committee)
subcommittee of the IFHA at its most recent meeting
floated the notion of a super Group 1 and the possible
use of an asterisk to designate Black Type use incountries where medication is allowed in Graded races.
What do you think of this idea?
Gagliano: I think that's a non-starter. That has neverbeen discussed in any kind of committee of the IFHA orin IRPAC and I would not endorse that concept. I thinkthat it would have negative implications on a lot of
aspects of our business here [in North America] and it
would not achieve what those who have proposed it
would like it to do. It would be the exact opposite ofharmonization.
Barry: Why do you think afellow like Kavanagh does
that? Is his motivation borneout of frustration or whatelse could it possibly be
attributed to? What's hisgoal?

Brian Kavanagh speaks atthe Round Table

Gagliano: I guess you'dhave to ask him what hisgoal is. I do know that Brianis held in high regard
throughout theThoroughbred industry. Heand I both serve as vicechairmen on the IFHA
executive council. We

invited him to speak at The Jockey Club=s Round Table
Conference in August out of respect for Brian andHorse Racing Ireland.
Irwin: IRPAC and SITA set the agenda for Graded racesin the world and how they are recognized in the sales
catalogs. They have the authority and power topressure North American racing jurisdictions into
eliminating drugs from Graded races. Do you think thisis the best way forward for those progressive horsementhat want change sooner rather than later?
Gagliano: I'm going to say no. I don't believe that is thebest way.
Hamilton: I don't believe this is the best way and I
think in trying to achieve harmonization, it could havethe opposite effect. We don=t know how the North
American sales companies would react.

Together we stand, divided we fall. We think
it's much better to work towardharmonization than to work for exclusion.
–Jim Gagliano
Gagliano: I found Nick Nicholson's keynote address at
the IFHA conference interesting as he gave a bit of a
retrospective of his involvement in the IFHA. He
discussed all of the gains that had been made over theyears in harmonizing things such as the Stud Book. It
wasn=t always easy, but collaboration has brought
success on many fronts. Together we stand, divided
we fall. We think it's much better to work towardharmonization than to work for exclusion.
Barry: Would The Jockey Club or the American Graded
Stakes Committee welcome a threat from an outside
source such as IRPAC or SITA or even the IFHA on
elimination of drugs in Graded races, that if not met
would cause a loss of black type in sales catalogs?
Metzger: The Graded Stakes Committee proposed theelimination of race-day medication in two-year-old
Graded races. Insofar as welcoming a threat, I cannot
speak to that, because that would be up to Dr. David
Richardson [chairman of the American Graded Stakes
Committee] and the other voting members. But, if athreat did come from SITA, I think it would have to betaken seriously. I think it's more probable that SITA
would encourage rather than threaten us to take someaction. The sales companies are the ones with real
influence on the Graded Stakes Committee. The Graded
Stakes Committee derives its authority through SITA.
So we would hope there would be the encouragement
to do that as opposed to a threat.

Barry: Breeders' Cup and the American Graded Stakes
Committee moved to eliminate Lasix from Graded races
only to step backward. Obviously there are businessreasons for these decisions that reflect reluctance on
the part of both entities to be engaged in costly
lawsuits, among other reasons. Do you think thesesputtering efforts have irreparably damaged themovement to eliminate race day drugs from Gradedraces?
TDN Q&A cont.

Gagliano: I don't think we can call anything Airreparable@at this point. There have been are a lot of different
tactics used; some have been successful and somehave not. We look at the expanse of the efforts on alllevels of medication reform. This is one of them. I don't
think this is the last we'll see of this issue and we
certainly support it and will continue to support any
efforts that help us achieve our longstanding goal ofseeing horses compete only when they are free fromthe influence of medication.
Barry: The Jockey Club conducts the Round Table
each August at Saratoga and features speakers that ingreat part generate comments that seek to influence
racing and breeding. Influence is important, especially inAmerica, where states' rights trump federal authority
outside of the Interstate Horseracing Act. What if
anything can be done to centralize authority?
Gagliano: As you know, pari-mutuel racing has long
been regulated by individual states. While there havebeen several efforts to bind those states together such as through a federal compact B to date, none havemade much progress. At times, those of us that areinvolved in leadership roles in the sport bemoan the lackof central coordination. But I also think there are times
when we also should take a step back and look at what
has been achieved. For example, take the three
initiatives that we talked about at last summer=s Round
Table Conference: uniform medication rules, uniform
penalty structure and accredited lab standards. We'revery encouraged that these reforms are starting to gel.
It=s quite possible that by early 2014 the majority of thestates that conduct pari-mutuel racing will be operatingfrom harmonized rules and penalties and lab standards.
In this regard, you've got to give a lot of credit to theARCI and the RMTC, as well as the NTRA, all of whom
have really taken the promotion of reform as a major
responsibility and have been very serious andaggressive in promoting it. On the matter of Lasix, I
would note that is one issue we've always dealt withseparately, and regulated differently.
The Jockey Club continues to believe that aphase-out of Lasix is imperative, and will continue topress for North American Lasix regulation to beharmonized with the rest of the world. But back to theother matter - medication rules, penalties and lab
standards - it's very difficult to conceive of a bright
future for the sport if these reforms are not embraced
and implemented.

Iuliano: Currently, the industry's engine for regulatory
reform in general, and medication and testing mattersspecifically, is through the combination of the RMTC
and ARCI. These two groups more or less bookend theindustry on medication matters with the RMTC
providing the scientific and analytical bases behind
substances used in racing, and the RCI crafting thatscience into regulations. Thus, the machine for change
is already built and self-contained within the industry.
Together, these two organizations can be very
instrumental in coordinating the states to act in aconcerted fashion to ensure uniformity of rules.
ÏÒOn the matter of Lasix, I would note that is
one issue we've always dealt with separately,
and regulated differently. The Jockey Club
continues to believe that a phase-out of Lasix
is imperative, and will continue to press forNorth American Lasix regulation to beharmonized with the rest of the world. But
back to the other matter - medication rules,
penalties and lab standards - it's very difficult
to conceive of a bright future for the sport if
these reforms are not embraced andimplemented.
–Jim Gagliano
Gagliano: So how do we, The Jockey Club, help topromote these things? One of the ways we've done sois through the Round Table Conference. Another of theways we have done so is through the media, withstatements, press releases, white papers, evenadvertising. Another resource we've created, in
collaboration with TOBA, was CleanHorseRacing.org,
which later morphed into HorseRacingReform.org. It's
our grassroots advocacy program. It has been used as avery powerful tool for owners and breeders and trainers
and participants and observers to express their pointsof view on medication reform. It's been enormouslysuccessful. We've had thousands of people support andsign petitions in support of reform. I think Dan would
agree that we need more people to get involved and tomake their voices heard.
Iuliano: You've got a great chronology on that website.
I think it dates all the way back to 2006 and it gives agood timeline to look at all the medication reform
efforts. For that matter, it even includes the larger
health, safety and welfare reform efforts that havegone on in the industry, starting with 2006 for the firstwelfare safety racehorse summit. So, it's a good
resource for everybody to look at.

Barry: Do you think that federal legislation offers aviable way to move our industry forward or do you
think we're better off just keeping the federal
government where it is right now?
Gagliano: That=s a tough question to answer at thispoint. In 2011, in a statement, we said it's undeniable
that some aspects of the sport fall under theresponsibility of the federal government - for example
the 1978 Interstate Horseracing Act. It is also true thatthe states have regulated the sport for a long time, andwould vigorously oppose a change in control. There has
been an awful lot of progress toward reform recently,
and the state commissions deserve a lot of credit forthat. However, as we stated at the Round Table, if
those reform efforts stall or are deemed to beinadequate, we may very well have to get behindfederal legislation. If that time should come, thatlegislation needs to be carefully considered within theindustry and cannot come from just one quarter.
Iuliano: At a recent meeting of the Massachusetts
Gaming Commission, Alex Waldrop gave a very good
chronology of the Interstate Horseracing Act, reminding
the audience that, at its inception, the IHA waseffectively a piece of federal legislation that wasoriginally drafted by the industry and then provided tothe federal government. There are certain aspects ofthe business that certainly belong and are currently
regulated under the purview of the federal government
and there are other aspects where regulation by thestate is provided.
Irwin: I think it was (former RCI President) TonyChamblin that basically constructed that part of the IHA
and he's had misgivings about doing it because of how
it's turned out. In that regard, do you think horsemen
are being shortsighted in fighting over race-day drugs,
based on Louis Romanet's contention that the future of
the industry depends on attracting a younger
generation and drugs simply turn them off?
Gagliano: Over the years we have conducted a lot ofresearch and there is statistical support for the position
that the use of medication in race-horses in competition
makes it difficult to create and attract new generationsof horse racing fans. It's hard to pick up The New YorkTimes or any other major publication that covers sports
or society and not see the taint of drugs oncompetition. It's not something that's going to go
away, as much as some wish it would. I just want tocome back and make sure I'm really clear on thisstatement. We have the utmost respect for those whohave considered federal legislation and we have evenmet with and collaborated with some of them. We havealso reached out to USADA by having Travis Tygart
speak in 2012 at our Round Table Conference. (Barry, Iknow you had suggested this idea maybe a decade
before). In fact, Matt Iuliano and I went out to meetwith USADA in Colorado Springs last February to learn
about its programs and operations.

Right now, however, we're very encouraged with themovement that we're seeing among state racing
commissions and horsemen's groups such as theThoroughbred Horsemen=s Association (THA), inparticular. I want to make it clear that wewholeheartedly support the current reform movement.
Irwin: I asked Chairman Romanet if he thought there
would be an appetite among the international membersof SITA to disallow Graded Black Type in sales
catalogues for American races in which drugs wereallowed if Keeneland and Fasig-Tipton supported it. His
response was, "I think it would make the world totallydifferent if Keeneland and Fasig-Tipton would supportit." What do you think?
Gagliano: I don't think going to SITA addresses thecore issue. And I don=t think SITA is the right body todecide this matter.