THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACING 

JOCKEYS AND WORKERS: 

EXAMINING ON-TRACK INJURY 

INSURANCE AND OTHER HEALTH 

AND WELFARE ISSUES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 9, 2006 

Serial No. 109-98 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2006 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

29-727PDF 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky, Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

 (EX OFFICIO)

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO)

(II)
CONTENTS 

Page 

Testimony of: 

Velaquez, John, Chairman of the Board of Directors, The Jockeys’ Guild ....................... 11 

Haire, Darrell, Interim National Manager, The Jockeys’ Guild........................................ 14 

Broad, Barry, National Legal Council, The Jockeys’ Guild............................................... 19 

(III) 

(1) 

THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACING 

JOCKEYS AND WORKERS: EXAMINING 

ON-TRACK INJURY INSURANCE AND 

OTHER HEALTH AND WELFARE ISSUES 

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in Room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield [chairman] 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Whitfield, Burgess, Stupak, and Barton (ex 

officio). 

Staff Present: Mark Paoletta, Chief Counsel for Oversight and 

Investigations; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel for Oversight and 

Investigations; Tom Feddo, Counsel; Clayton Matheson, Analyst; 

Michael Abraham, Legislative Clerk; David Nelson, Minority 

Investigator/Economist; and Elizabeth Ertel, Minority Senior Staff 

Assistant. 

MR. WHITFIELD. I would like to call this hearing to order. Today’s 

subject will be thoroughbred horseracing, jockeys and workers, 

examining ontrack injury insurance and other health and welfare issues. 

As you know, we have had one full-scale hearing on this already and a 

number of developments have occurred since that first hearing so we are 

going to proceed into and explore some of those areas today. 

Horseracing certainly has a significant impact on interstate 

commerce. By way of example, this hearing is being held just 3 days 

after the Kentucky Derby, one of the most famous and prestigious races 

in the sport, on which nearly $119 million was legally wagered on that 

race alone. Horseracing’s impact on our sports culture and economy 

reinforces our motivation to remain apprised of issues or problems in the 

industry. 

Horseracing remains a dangerous sport. Indeed, one of our witnesses 

today, jockey John Velazquez, who is the Guild’s current Chairman of 

the Board and one of the Nation’s finest jockeys, was injured on 

April 20th when a horse he was riding collapsed at the finish line at 

Keeneland. The horse fell on Mr. Velazquez, breaking his shoulder 
2

blade and several ribs and forcing him to miss the Kentucky Derby. We 

are grateful for his attendance today and certainly want to wish him a 

speedy recovery. 

Since our last hearing, there have been some noteworthy 

developments over the past few months about which we will hear 

testimony today. Within 1 month of our hearing, the Guild’s Board of 

Directors fired Dr. Gertmenian, the Guild’s Chief Executive Officer, and 

his staff, including Albert Fiss, Lloyd Ownbey, Lisa Haley, and others. 

Unfortunately, Dr. Gertmenian and his company’s questionable 

actions continued to the very last moment when his Chief Financial 

Officer wrote checks totaling over $200,000 from the Guild’s accounts to 

himself, Dr. Gertmenian, and Mr. Fiss. 

Earlier this year, the Guild held its first annual assembly following 

Dr. Gertmenian’s ousting and has begun to revise its bylaws and repair 

its broken finances. It is my understanding that civil suits involving 

jockey Gary Birzer, the Guild, Dr. Gertmenian, and Mr. Fiss, among 

others, have been filed in the Federal courts. 

In the meantime, according to press reports, Dr. Gertmenian has 

come under investigation by the FBI and local police in Los Angeles, 

apparently for his suspect activities while heading the Guild. 

Unfortunately, it looks like Pepperdyne University still has him listed on 

its website as being the head of the Jockeys’ Guild. 

The Guild’s new leadership is here today to tell us about what Dr. 

Gertmenian left in his wake, the changes they have implemented to their 

organization, their efforts to find a long-term managers and the efforts 

they have undertaken to ensure that the Guild survives and its 

permanently disabled members are not left helpless and unsupported. 

There are still only four States that provide workers compensation 

programs for jockeys and exercise riders. My home State of Kentucky 

almost passed a bill creating a workers comp program for jockeys racing 

there but ran into last minute problems, and it was not adopted. 

I personally believe that we need a Federal solution in this area, and I 

believe that we can do so, and once the details of what we are proposing 

get out, I honestly believe that there will not be a lot of opposition to this. 

Since our hearings, however, many race tracks of their own accord 

have raised their ontrack catastrophic insurance coverage to $500,000 or 

a million dollars. We are encouraged by this development, and I gather 

that jockeys and exercise riders are also. 

On the matter of ontrack insurance purchased by race tracks, we 

have subpoenaed Ms. Rose Mary Williams who is the Director of 

Racing at Mountaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort to testify today. 

Ms. Williams voluntarily testified on November the 17th at our hearing 

during that time, and then after the hearing, Mr. Stupak, our Ranking 
3

Member, wrote supplemental written questions directed to Ms. Williams 

and Mountaineer, and following her written answers, committee staff 

requested to interview Ms. Williams and discuss discrepancies between 

her oral testimony and written statements. Ms. Williams through her 

legal counsel declined to be interviewed by the committee staff. 

Accordingly, the full committee Chairman authorized a subpoena for her 

testimony today so that we can hopefully obtain answers to the questions 

that we wanted to ask. 

This is an important subject matter. There is a lot of money 

involved. It is a dangerous sport, and there are a lot of injuries as a result 

of it. So I look forward to today’s testimony, and I thank the witnesses 

for their attendance. 

And I would like to at this time turn to our distinguished Ranking 

Member, Mr. Stupak, for the purposes of his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Ed Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED WHITFIELD, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Good afternoon and welcome. Today, the Oversight and Investigations 

Subcommittee will revisit some of the serious issues we examined last year regarding the 

health and welfare of jockeys, exercise riders, and backstretch workers. These issues 

affect the professional sport of horse racing and the many individuals who work with the 

horses every day. 

 As I have emphasized before, horse racing has a very significant impact on interstate 

commerce. By way of example, this hearing is being held just three days after the 

Kentucky Derby, one of the most famous and prestigious races in the sport, on which 

nearly $119 million was legally wagered. Horse racing’s impact on our sports culture 

and economy only reinforces our motivation to remain apprised of issues or problems in 

the industry. 

 Horse racing remains just as dangerous today as we noted last fall when we 

conducted our hearings. Indeed, one of our witnesses, jockey John Velazquez, who is the 

Guild’s current Chairman of the Board and one of the nation’s finest jockeys, was injured 

on April 20th when the horse he was riding collapsed at the finish line. The horse fell on 

Mr. Velazquez, breaking his shoulder blade and several ribs, and forcing him to miss the 

Kentucky Derby. I am grateful for your attendance today, Mr. Velazquez, and am 

relieved that your injuries were not more severe. 

 Since our last hearing there have been some noteworthy developments in the past 

few months about which we will hear testimony today. Shortly after our October 2005 

hearing, the Guild’s members began to take back ownership of their organization. Within 

one month, the Guild’s Board of Directors fired Dr. Gertmenian, the Guild’s Chief 

Executive Officer, and his staff, including Albert Fiss, Lloyd Ownbey, Gevork Asatryan, 

and Lisa Haley. Unfortunately, Dr. Gertmenian’s and his company’s questionable 

actions continued to the very last moment – when his Chief Financial Officer, Mr. 

Asatryan, wrote checks totaling over $200,000 from the Guild’s accounts to himself, Dr. 

Gertmenian, and Mr. Fiss. 

 Earlier this year, the Guild held its first annual assembly following Dr. Gertmenian’s 

ouster and has begun to revise its bylaws and repair its broken finances. It is my 

understanding that civil suits involving jockey Gary Birzer, the Guild, Dr. Gertmenian, 

and Mr. Fiss, among others, have been filed in the federal courts. In the meantime, 
4

according to press reports, Dr. Gertmenian has come under investigation by the FBI and 

local police in Los Angeles, apparently for his suspect activities while heading the Guild. 

 The Guild’s new leadership is here today to tell us about what Dr. Gertmenian left in 

his wake, the changes they have implemented to their organization, their efforts to find a 

long-term national manager, and the efforts they have undertaken to ensure that the Guild 

survives, and its permanently disabled members are not left helpless and unsupported. I 

look forward to hearing about the consortium that the Guild, many race tracks, and 

several racing organizations have created to raise money to benefit disabled riders. 

 There are still only four states that provide workers’ compensation programs for 

jockeys or exercise riders. My home state of Kentucky almost passed a bill creating a 

workers’ compensation program for jockeys racing there, but ran into some last minute 

problems. I hope that eventually the various racing interests in Kentucky will be able to 

reach a compromise and create a workers’ compensation program for the riders. Since 

our hearings, however, many racetracks of their own accord have raised their on-track 

catastrophic insurance coverage to $500,000 or $1 million. We are encouraged by this 

development, and I gather that jockeys and exercise riders are also. 

 On the matter of on-track insurance purchased by the race tracks, we have 

subpoenaed Ms. Rose Mary Williams, the Director of Racing at Mountaineer Race Track 

and Gaming Resort, to testify today. Ms. Williams voluntarily testified at our November 

17th hearing last year. Additionally, after the hearing Mr. Stupak wrote supplemental 

written questions directed to Ms. Williams and Mountaineer. Following Ms. Williams’ 

written answers, Committee staff requested to interview Ms. Williams and discuss 

discrepancies between her oral testimony and written statement. Ms. Williams, through 

her legal counsel, declined to be interviewed by Committee staff. Accordingly, the Full 

Committee Chairman authorized a subpoena for her testimony today, so that we can 

hopefully get answers to the questions we wanted to ask. 

 I look forward to today’s testimony and I thank the witnesses for their attendance. 

 I now turn to the distinguished Ranking Member, Mr. Stupak, for the purposes of an 

opening statement. 

MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last fall, this subcommittee held hearings into the state of the horse 

racing industry and the Jockeys’ Guild. While those were productive 

hearings, there are still several issues that need to be addressed from our 

hearings last fall. On November 3rd, 2005, you and I, Mr. Chairman, 

requested that Secretary of Health and Human Services Leavitt conduct a 

study by NIOSHA of the safety conditions at horse racing tracks in the 

United States. Secretary Leavitt finally agreed to the study on 

January 25th, 2006. 

However, it’s now May 9th, some 6 months after we apprised the 

Secretary of the dire safety conditions in this industry, and we have no 

indication that any substantive work has been done. 

On November 2nd, 2005, the Democratic members of this 

subcommittee asked the National Labor Relations Board to repeal their 

antiquated rule reviewing jurisdiction over an effort by jockeys or other 

racetrack employees to organize for collective bargaining purposes in 

this dangerous industry. Unfortunately, the NLRB has refused to change 

their rules. Therefore, my office has begun the process of having 
5

legislation drafted to allow jockeys and riders to collectively bargain. I 

hope to introduce this bill in the coming weeks. 

Our Government is not only failing in its duty to protect jockeys and 

exercise riders from the oppressive practices of the race tracks, it is 

actively preventing these workers from protecting themselves by 

permitting the race tracks to break up any attempts by the jockeys and 

riders to collectively improve their working conditions. We in this 

country outlawed such practices over 70 years ago for other American 

workers, and it is time to provide the same rights to jockeys and riders. 

I do wish to join with you, Mr. Chairman, in sponsoring one of the 

solutions that falls squarely within our jurisdiction. Your idea to amend 

the Interstate Horseracing Act to include jockeys and exercise riders in 

the revenue sharing from simulcasting of horse races may be the quickest 

solution to solving the health insurance crisis documented in our hearings 

last fall. By including jockeys in the revenue sharing, ample financing 

will finally be made available for adequate ontrack and offtrack health 

insurance as well as a modest retirement fund for the human athletes that 

are the linchpins of this $26 billion industry. 

I found it interesting that during the Kentucky Derby last weekend 

Woodford Reserve Distillery was selling mint juleps with the 

proceedings going to what is essentially a retirement fund for horse 

races, I should say for race horses, yet there was no mention of any 

similar fundraising going on for the jockeys who risk their lives each day 

to earn millions of dollars for the owners and trainers of these horses. 

Unlike retired race horses, many of the jockeys have families to support. 

Let me suggest that for the 2007 Kentucky Derby, it would be great 

to see a fundraiser with proceeds going to help defray costs for jockeys 

like Gary Birzer who are injured or paralyzed. 

Mr. Chairman, another issue that needs to be followed up is the 

testimony of Ms. Rose Mary Williams, and I am pleased to see that she 

will be back before us again today. It is unfortunate, however, that her 

return is necessitated by the lack of candor in her testimony last fall. 

On November 17th, 2005, Ms. Williams, director of racing at 

Mountaineer Race Track in West Virginia, had ample opportunity to 

reply to this committee’s questions regarding Mountaineer’s failure to 

provide adequate ontrack accidental medical insurance for its jockeys. 

You will recall that Mountaineer is where Gary Birzer had his accident 

that left him paralyzed for life. 

Ms. Williams chose to lead this subcommittee to believe that she was 

unable to obtain a quote for a million dollar insurance policy. Twice she 

was questioned about it under oath, and twice she said that she could not 

obtain a quote for such a policy from her broker. 
6

We have documents to show that Ms. Williams together with another 

Mountaineer employee, Ms. Sandra Brokaw, solicited such a quote from 

Johnson & Anton Insurance Brokerage on February 16th, 2005. Our 

documents show that they received an extensive quote back 2 days later, 

February 18th, 2005. 

Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure whether Ms. Williams’ testimony to this 

subcommittee requires a review by the Department of Justice. I am, 

however, certain that it was designed to deceive us. Mountaineer is one 

of the most prosperous race tracks in the country. Unfortunately, it also 

has a reputation of one of the worst employers in the industry when it 

comes to caring about jockeys that make their profits possible. Not only 

did Ms. Williams take no responsibility for the paralysis of Gary Birzer, 

she made no attempt to upgrade the woefully inadequate insurance that 

Mountaineer carried after this tragic spill. 

When questioned about it last November, her testimony led us to 

believe that adequate insurance simply was not available. Now we find 

this is not true. I look forward to hearing her explanation today. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up, so I will yield back and look forward 

to this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Bart Stupak follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

 Last fall, this Subcommittee held hearings into the state of the horse racing industry 

and the Jockey’s Guild. While those were productive hearings, there are still several 

issues that need to be addressed from our hearings last fall. 

On November 3, 2005, you and I jointly requested that the Secretary of Health & 

Human Services, Mr. Leavitt, conduct a study by NIOSH of the safety conditions at horse 

racing tracks in the United States. Secretary Leavitt finally agreed to the study on 

January 25, 2006. However it is now May 9th, some 6 months after we apprised the 

Secretary of the dire safety conditions in this industry, and we have no indication that any 

substantive work has been done. 

On November 2nd 2005 the Democratic Members of this Subcommittee asked the 

National Labor Relations Board to repeal their antiquated rule refusing jurisdiction over 

any effort by jockeys or other racetrack employees to organize for collective bargaining 

purposes in this dangerous industry. Unfortunately, the NLRB has refused change their 

rules. Therefore, my office has begun the process of having legislation drafted to allow 

jockeys to collectively bargain. I hope to introduce the bill in the coming weeks. 

Our government is not only failing in its duty to protect jockeys and exercise riders 

from the oppressive practices of the racetracks, it is actively preventing these workers 

from protecting themselves by permitting the race tracks to break up any attempts by the 

jockeys and riders to act collectively to improve their working conditions. We outlawed 

such practices over 70 years ago for other American workers, and it is time to provide the 

same rights to Jockeys and riders. 

I do wish to join with you Mr. Chairman in sponsoring one of the solutions that falls 

squarely within our jurisdiction. Your idea to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act to 
7

include jockeys and exercise riders in the revenue sharing from simolcasting of horse 

races, may well be the quickest solution to solving the health insurance crisis documented 

in our hearings last fall. By including Jockeys in the revenue sharing, ample financing 

will finally be made available for adequate on-track and off-track health insurance as well 

as a modest retirement fund for the human athletes that are linchpins of this $26 billion 

industry. 

I found it interesting that during the Kentucky Derby last weekend, Woodford 

Reserve Distillery was selling $1,000 mint juleps with the proceeds going to what is 

essentially a retirement fund for the race horses. Yet there was no mention of any similar 

fund raising going on for the Jockeys who risk their lives each day to earn millions for 

the owners and trainers of these horses. Unlike retired race horses, many of the Jockeys 

have families to support. Let me suggest that for the 2007 Kentucky Derby it would be 

great to see a fund raiser with proceeds going to help defray costs for Jockeys like Gary 

Birzer who are injured or paralyzed! 

Mr. Chairman, another issue that needs to be followed up on is the Testimony of Ms. 

Rose Mary Williams and I’m pleased to see that she will be back before us again today. 

It is unfortunate, however, that her return is necessitated by the lack of candor in her 

testimony last fall. On November 17, 2005, Ms. Williams - the Director of Racing at 

Mountaineer race track in West Virginia - had ample opportunity to reply to this 

Committee’s questions regarding Mountaineer’s failure to provide adequate on-track 

accidental medical insurance for its jockeys. You’ll recall that Mountaineer is where 

Gary Birzer had his accident that left him paralyzed for life. 

Ms. Williams chose to lead this Subcommittee to believe that she was unable to 

obtain a quote for a million dollar insurance policy. Twice she was questioned about it 

under oath and twice she said that she could not obtain a quote for such a policy from her 

broker. 

We have documents to show that Ms. Williams, together with another Mountaineer 

employee Ms. Sandra Brokaw, solicited such a quote from Johnson and Anton Insurance 

Brokerage on February 16, 2005. Our documents show that they received an extensive 

quote back two days later, February 18, 2005. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether Ms. Williams’ testimony to this Subcommittee 

requires a review by the Department of Justice. I am certain, however, that it was 

designed to deceive us. 

Mountaineer is one of the most prosperous racetracks in the country. Unfortunately, 

it also has a reputation as one of the worst employers in the industry when it comes to 

caring about the jockeys that make their profits possible. Not only did Ms. Williams take 

no responsibility for the paralysis of Gary Birzer, she made no attempt to upgrade the 

woefully inadequate insurance that Mountaineer carried after that tragic spill. When 

questioned about it last November, her testimony led us believe that adequate insurance 

simply was not available. 

I look forward to her explanation. I yield back. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Stupak. 

At this time I recognize the full committee Chairman, Mr. Barton of 

Texas, for the opening statement he may want. 

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I submitted my 

written statement for the record. I appreciate you doing the hearing. I 

think we had a great, positive result Saturday at Churchhill Downs; 

showed horseracing at its best, with the Kentucky Derby and all the 

panoply that goes with that and the excitement. Looking forward to the 

Triple Crown and hopefully this hearing will continue to shed light on 
8

what the Jockeys’ Guild is doing. It appears to me that they are moving 

in the right direction, and thanks to the leadership of you and Mr. Stupak, 

taking actions that should have been taken a long time ago, and hopefully 

on our second panel, we will get the witness who could have answered a 

few questions over the phone and been on and about her business. Her 

counsel seems to think that it is their job to obstruct justice and truth. 

We will get it one way or the other. We will get that done, and I applaud 

Mr. Stupak for insisting that we get to the bottom of the discrepancies in 

that area. So I look forward to the hearing and continuing the progress 

that we seem to be making in reforming the Jockeys’ Guild. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of the Hon. Joe Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Thank you, Chairman Whitfield, for holding this hearing and continuing your hard 

work on this issue. 

Last year, the Subcommittee undertook a serious examination of on-track injury 

coverage for people who work in horseracing. We found out what every jockey and 

trainer already knows, that a billion-dollar sport can’t seem to insure the people who do 

the work and risk their necks. 

In October of last year, representatives of the Jockeys’ Guild testified about the 

health and welfare issues faced by the sport’s riders, and to explain why the Guild’s 

leadership chose in 2002 not to renew its members’ on-track accident insurance. For 

many years prior to that, the Guild had supplemented the on-track insurance provided by 

the race tracks to its members. 

The incredible testimony during that hearing, particularly the tragic story of jockey 

Gary Birzer, made it clear to me that the Guild needed a house-cleaning. Mr. Chairman, 

the hearing you held in October plainly led the Guild’s membership to the same 

conclusion. Within a month, the Guild had fired Dr. Gertmenian, his staff, and his 

company. 

Then, last November, representatives from various racetracks, prominent 

horsemen’s associations, and industry-related welfare groups, testified at a second 

hearing and answered our questions about the status of on-track insurance in the industry 

and about how to improve on-track injury insurance coverage for the industry’s workers. 

Today we will hear from the Guild’s new management team, to update the 

Subcommittee on the progress the Guild has made in rescuing itself from financial ruin. 

Today’s testimony will provide more details about how Dr. Gertmenian – a selfproclaimed master negotiator – left the Guild with its reputation in tatters and on the 

verge of financial collapse. I hope that the Guild is on course to regain its financial 

footing, and will find ways of improving on-track injury coverage for jockeys. 

Finally, one of our witnesses, Ms. Williams, was subpoenaed to appear and testify 

today. I authorized the issuance of that subpoena. I didn’t do so lightly, but while we are 

going to honor and protect people’s rights against self-incrimination, this is not about 

invoking the 5th Amendment here today. This is about simple obstruction. Our members 

and our staff are going to get to the truth even when attorneys advise clients to obstruct 

an investigation. In this case, we had expected to get the information we sought with a 

simple interview, but our request was rejected. So instead of a simple interview, a 

witness has been subpoenaed to Washington to testify at a hearing. When the Committee 

staff requests an interview to clarify some important issues that arise during a hearing, 
9

and is refused, we have no choice. When we need to do our job, I will use the 

Committee’s power to secure the information and testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to today’s testimony and yield back the remainder of 

my time. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Barton. 

At this time, recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess. 

MR. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll submit my statement 

for the record so we can get right on to the witnesses. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Burgess. 

STATEMENTS OF DARRELL HAIRE, INTERIM NATIONAL 

MANAGER, THE JOCKEYS’ GUILD, ACCOMPANIED BY 

LARRY SAUMELL, REGIONAL MANAGER; JOHN 

VELAZQUEZ, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, THE JOCKEYS’ GUILD; AND BARRY 

BROAD, NATIONAL LEGAL COUNSEL, THE JOCKEYS’ 

GUILD. 

 

MR. WHITFIELD. At this time, I would like to call the first panel. 

Mr. Darrell Haire, who is the Interim National Manager of the Jockeys’ 

Guild. In addition, we have Mr. John Velazquez, who is a jockey but 

also Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Jockeys’ Guild; Mr. 

Barry Broad, who’s the National Legal Counsel for the Jockeys’ Guild. 

If you three gentlemen would come forward and take your seat at the 

podium. And then my understanding, Mr. Larry Saumell, who is the 

Regional Manager for the Jockeys’ Guild, is also with us today. 

So I want to thank you gentlemen for taking time from your busy 

schedules to be with us. Obviously, your testimony is quite important as 

we explore ways to address some safety issues but, more importantly, to 

look at ways to take care of insurance issues relating to jockeys. 

As you know, this is an Oversight and Investigations hearing, and it 

is our policy to take testimony under oath. I would ask all four of you; 

do any of you have any difficulty testifying under oath or any objection 

to testifying under oath? Certainly, you are, under the rules of the House 

and of the committee, entitled to legal representation. Do any of you 

have legal representation with you today? 

Okay. If you would stand and raise your right hand, I would like to 

swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. You are now sworn in. 

And, Mr. Haire, we’ll call upon you to give us your 5 minute 

opening statement. 

MR. HAIRE. Mr. Chairman. 
10

MR. WHITFIELD. Be sure and turn your microphone on so we can 

hear you. Thank you. 

MR. HAIRE. Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind, I’d like Johnny 

Velazquez, if he could, to go first. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. John Velazquez, as I told you, is Chairman 

of the Board of Directors, and we welcome you and recognize you for 

your 5 minute opening statement. Be sure to hit the button so your 

microphone is on so we can hear your testimony. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. It’s on now, right. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman and the committee, I thank you for having us and 

having this opportunity to speak in front of you and try to update you on 

the things happening in the last few months and the work that we have 

done. 

My name is John Velazquez. I’m the Chairperson of the Board of 

Directors of the Jockeys’ Guild, and I am pleased to testify before this 

committee and update you on the conditions of the Jockeys’ Guild. 

We have been working very hard since the removal of Mr. 

Gertmenian to restore a respectful relationship of mutual respect and 

understanding between the Guild and the horseracing industry. While 

we may not always agree on issues, it is critical that we work together for 

the good of the sport and the welfare of our members. 

We have been meeting frequently in the last several months with the 

industry leaders to discuss how we can partner with them to ensure the 

needs of the jockeys are met. As you know, for the past 60 years the 

Jockeys’ Guild has shouldered the burden of providing health insurance 

to its members, taking care of the temporarily disabled and trying to meet 

the needs of our permanently disabled riders who must be taken care of 

for the rest of their lives. 

We have tried to show the industry that shouldering this 

responsibility alone is virtually impossible for an organization with 

thousands of members to afford from its own resources. This is made 

even more difficult because we must also represent our members on 

many other important issues the jockeys face daily as professional 

athletes. 

Today I am pleased to report to you that we have reached a historic 

agreement with the industry to create a new jointly administrative 

program to fund our program for permanently disabled riders. This new 

group has pledged to raise at least $1 million annually to provide 

financial assistance and case management services to the 61 jockeys that 

are currently permanently disabled and for those jockeys that will receive 

crippling injuries in the future. 

We are grateful that the tracks and horsemen are willing to step up to 

the plate and accept that the care of those who have given everything to 
11

the horseracing industry is the responsibility of the entire industry, not 

just the jockeys themselves. It means a lot to us that the industry has 

taken this step, and I wish to publicly thank them today for their effort. 

Mr. Chairman, just a few weeks ago, I was injured in a race in 

Keeneland. The horse broke down, and I was thrown. The horse landed 

on top of me, and I broke my shoulder. I was very lucky, very lucky, and 

very blessed. I would say very blessed that I only sustained a broken 

shoulder blade. The fact of the matter is, every time you leave the 

paddock, you really don’t know if you are coming back. It can happen to 

any of us on any racing day. 

We need to know for the sake of ourselves and our families that if 

we are injured, we will receive the best medical care, and God forbid, if 

we suffer a devastating injury, we will be taken care of. 

There is much work to be done to reach this goal. While many 

tracks have raised their coverage for ontrack accidents to a million, there 

are tracks around the country that have inadequate insurance coverage. 

Some tracks still provide no coverage at all. There is workers 

compensation coverage in only five racing States. Our members should 

be covered in all States. For many jockeys, health insurance is not 

affordable, given the low incomes. We need to raise mount fees so that 

all jockeys who want health coverage can afford it. 

So, Mr. Chairman, we would like the industry to provide a retirement 

plan for its riders so that the jockeys who are too old or too sick to 

continue racing can live out their lives in dignity. 

Finally, and perhaps the most important, it is critical that we have a 

real seat at the table in the industry. The Interstate Horseracing Act 

needs to be amended to give jockeys the legal rights along with the 

trainers and owners to a fair share of the revenue from the transmission 

of the horseracing signal. That way, Mr. Chairman, we will have the 

resources we need to help ourselves. 

I am available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of John Velazquez follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN VELAZQUEZ, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

THE JOCKEYS’ GUILD

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

 My name is John Velazquez and I am Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the 

Jockeys’ Guild. 

 I am pleased to testify before this Committee and update you on the condition of the 

Jockeys’ Guild. 

 We have been working very hard since the removal of Mr. Gertmenian to restore a 

respectful relationship of mutual respect and understanding between the Guild and the 

horseracing industry. While we may not always agree on issues, it is critical that we 

work together for the good of the sport and the welfare of our members. 
12

 We have been meeting frequently in the last several months with industry leaders to 

discuss how we can partner with them to insure that the needs of jockeys are met. As you 

know, for the past 60 years, the Jockeys’ Guild has shouldered the burden of providing 

health insurance to its members, taking care of the temporarily disabled, and trying to 

meet the needs of our permanently disabled riders—who must be taken care of for the 

rest of their lives. We have tried to show the industry that shouldering this responsibility 

alone is virtually impossible for an organization with a thousand members to afford from 

its own resources. This is made even more difficult because we must also represent our 

members on many other important issues that jockeys face daily as professional athletes. 

 Today, I am pleased to report to you that we have reached an historic agreement 

with the industry to create a new jointly administered program to fund our program for 

permanently disabled riders. This new group has pledged to raise at least $1 million 

annually to provide financial assistance and case management services to the 61 jockeys 

that are currently permanently disabled and for those jockeys that will receive crippling 

injuries in the future. We are grateful that the tracks and horsemen are willing to step up 

to the plate and accept that the care of those who have given everything to the 

horseracing industry is the responsibility of the entire industry, not just the jockeys 

themselves. It means a lot to us that the industry has taken this step, and I wish to 

publicly thank them today for their effort. 

 Mr. Chairman, just a few weeks ago, I was injured in a race at Keeneland. The 

horse broke down and I was thrown. The horse landed on top of me and broke my 

shoulder. I was lucky, very lucky that I only sustained a broken shoulder blade. The fact 

of the matter is that every time you leave that paddock, you really don’t know if you’re 

coming back. It can happen to any of us on any race day. We need to know, for the sake 

of ourselves and our families, and that if we are injured, we will receive the best medical 

care and--God forbid--if we suffer a devastating injury, we will be taken care of. 

 There is much work to be done to reach this goal. While many tracks have raised 

their coverage for on-track accidents to $1 million, there are tracks around the country 

that have inadequate insurance coverage. Some tracks still provide no coverage at all. 

There is workers’ compensation coverage in only 5 racing states. Our members should 

be covered in all states. For many jockeys, health insurance is not affordable given their 

low incomes. We need to raise mount fees so that all jockeys who want health coverage 

can afford it. And some day, Mr. Chairman, we would like the industry to provide a 

retirement plan for its riders so that the jockeys who are too old or too sick to continue 

racing can live out their lives in dignity. 

 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is critical that we have a real seat at the 

table in this industry. The Interstate Horseracing Act needs to be amended to give 

jockeys the legal right, along with trainers and owners, to a fair share of the revenue from 

the transmission of the horseracing signal. That way, Mr. Chairman, we will have the 

resources we need to help ourselves. 

 I am available to answer any questions you may have. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, very much for your testimony, Mr. 

Velazquez. We appreciate it. 

Mr. Haire, I will recognize you for your opening statement. 

MR. HAIRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Darrell Haire, 

and I am the Interim National Manager of the Jockeys’ Guild. I am very 

pleased to be back here testifying before you. When I was here last 

before the committee, the riders had just retaken control of our 

organization and we were trying to get on our feet. I am pleased to 
13

report to you that we have restored order to the business of running the 

Guild. It hasn’t been easy and big challenges remain. We have had to 

make some very tough decisions, but we are moving forward, and we are 

getting the job done. 

On the day Wayne Gertmenian and the Matrix team was terminated, 

we were left with $6,000 in the bank, nearly a half a million dollars in 

unpaid medical bills, disabled jockeys who needed to be paid, an 

accounting system that was in disarray, one employee, and a graduate 

student intern in the office. Within a few days, we realized that we 

would have to move our office to avoid the double rent we were paying 

to Matrix. 

On that first day, Mr. Chairman, we decided that we would not 

declare bankruptcy, and we would do everything in our power to get the 

Guild back on its feet and moving forward again. Jockeys and their 

wives volunteered to work in our office, and we worked 7 days a week, 

14 hours a day to get things moving again. 

Immediately, and taking a significant leap of faith, the Chairperson 

of the California Horse Racing Board, Richard Shapiro, authorized the 

payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars of back health insurance 

funds that had been withheld while the CHRB investigated allegations of 

financial misconduct by Wayne Gertmenian. Shortly thereafter, led by 

Don Amos, Magna Entertainment Company, many race tracks began 

sending back media rights payments to the Jockeys’ Guild. And our 

members, the backbone of our organization, stuck with us. 

Our Board of Directors realized that in order to get our financial 

house in order, we needed to institute a series of painful fiscal reforms to 

cut costs. These included increasing the eligibility requirements of our 

temporary disability program to a minimum of 100 mounts in the current 

or previous calendar year; raising our dues by 25 percent, from $3 per 

mount to $4 per mount; creating a consistent policy in our permanent 

disability program so that all participants get the same benefits; requiring 

that all jockeys who are in arrears in health insurance premiums make 

arrangements to pay back their premiums or lose coverage. 

Unfortunately, we have recently terminated approximately 100 jockeys 

from the health plan after making every effort to get them to pay the 

large premiums they owe. And we have created a rules committee 

charged with ensuring that our members do not get behind in their health 

premium payments, and to take action if they do. 

In addition to fiscal reforms, we have instituted a number of 

institutional reforms to make our organization more democratic and more 

accountable to its membership. At our recent national assembly in 

Dallas, Texas, we approved amendments to our bylaws that did the 

following: established a new system of national direct elections of the 
14

Guild senate to be held next month in June and every 2 years thereafter. 

Active jockeys would run for office and represent three regions of the 

country; a western, central, and eastern region. There will be nine 

senators elected from each region. The 27 senators elected would then 

elect a new Board of Directors, and that would be a nine-member Board 

of Directors. 

Finally, we have improved our previously nonexistent system of 

internal communications. We have a website that is regularly updated 

with current information to our members, and also we are informing our 

members by mail throughout the country, written in both English and 

Spanish, of policies and issues that arise. 

We continue to represent our members vigorously at the race tracks, 

before the racing commissions around the country, and in front of State 

legislatures. While we are not out of the woods yet and are still 

operating on a day-to-day basis, we are making progress towards 

restoring the integrity and strength of this great organization. 

Mr. Chairman, due to the determination of our members and help 

from our friends, including members of this committee, the Jockeys’ 

Guild is moving again in the right direction. And I thank you again for 

the opportunity to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Darrell Haire follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARRELL HAIRE, INTERIM NATIONAL MANAGER, THE JOCKEYS’

GUILD

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

 I am Darrell Haire and I am the Interim National Manager of the Jockeys’ Guild. I 

am very pleased to be back here testifying before you. When I was last before the 

Committee, we had just retaken control and were trying to get on our feet. 

 I am pleased to report to you that we have restored order to the business of running 

the Guild. It hasn’t been easy and big challenges remain. We have had to make some 

very tough decisions, but we are moving forward and getting the job done. 

 On the day Mr. Gertmenian and the Matrix team was terminated, we were left with 

$6,000 in the Bank, nearly a half a million dollars in unpaid medical bills, disabled 

jockeys who needed to be paid, an accounting system that was in disarray, and one 

employee and a graduate student intern in the office. And within a few days, we realized 

that we would have to move offices to avoid the double rent we were paying Matrix. 

 On that first day, Mr. Chairman, we decided that we would not declare bankruptcy, 

that we would do everything in our power to get the Guild back on its feet and moving 

again. Jockeys and their wives volunteered to work in our office and we worked 7 days a 

week, 12 hours a day to get things moving again. 

 Immediately, and taking a significant leap of faith, the Chairperson of the California 

Horseracing Board, Richard Shapiro, authorized the payment of hundreds of thousands of 

dollars of back health insurance funds that had been withheld while the CHRB 

investigated allegations of financial misconduct by Dr. Gertmenian. Shortly thereafter, 

led by Magna Entertainment Company, many racetracks began sending back media rights 

payments to the Guild. And our members, the backbone of our organization, stuck with 

us. 
15

 Our Board of Directors realized that, in order to get our financial house in order, we 

needed to institute a series of painful fiscal reforms to cut costs. These included: 

• Increasing the eligibility requirements for our temporary disability program to 

minimum of 100 mounts in the current or previous calendar year. 

• Raising our dues by 25%, from $3 per mount to $4 per mount. 

• Creating a consistent policy in our permanent disability program so that all 

participants get the same benefits. 

• Requiring that all jockeys who are in arrears in health insurance premiums 

make arrangements to pay their back premiums or lose coverage. We have 

recently terminated approximately 100 jockeys from the plan after making 

every effort to get them to pay the premiums they owe. 

• Creating a Rules Committee charged with insuring that our members do not get 

behind in their health premium payments and to take action if they do. 

 In addition to fiscal reforms, we have instituted a number of institutional reforms to 

make our organization more democratic and more accountable to its membership. At our 

recent national assembly in Dallas, Texas, we approved amendments to our bylaws that 

did the following: 

• Established a new system of national direct elections of the Guild Senate, to be 

held in June of this year and every two years thereafter. 

• The Senators would run for office and represent three regions of the country, a 

western, central, and eastern region. 

• The Senators would then elect a new Board of Directors. 

 Finally, we have improved our previously nonexistent system of internal 

communications. We have a web site that is regularly updated with current information 

to our members and we are informing our members by mail and in every jockeys’ room 

in the country of new policies and issues as they arise. 

 We continue to represent our members vigorously at the racetracks, before the 

racing commissions around the country, and in front of state legislatures. 

 While we are not out of the woods yet and are still operating on a day-to-day basis, 

every day we are making progress towards restoring the integrity and strength of our 

organization. 

 Mr. Chairman, due to the determination of our members and help from our friends—

including the members of this Committee—the Jockeys’ Guild is moving in the right 

direction again. 

 Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Haire. 

At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Broad for his opening 

statement. 

MR. BROAD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my 

name is Barry Broad, and I am legal counsel and legislative 

representative of the Jockeys’ Guild in California. My firm was hired by 

former Guild National Manager John Giovanni in 1995, and I continued 

to represent the Jockeys’ Guild right through last fall. 

A few days after Wayne Gertmenian’s testimony before your 

committee, I severed my relationship with the Guild, feeling that I could 

no longer represent its membership in good conscience so long as Dr. 

Gertmenian and his management firm, Matrix Capital Associates, were 
16

employed by the Jockeys’ Guild. I then volunteered my services to those 

members of the Jockeys’ Guild Senate and Board of Directors who 

wished to remove Dr. Gertmenian. I was present during the emergency 

meeting of the Jockeys’ Guild that was held by telephone conference call 

which resulted in the termination of Dr. Gertmenian. I was then 

appointed by the new interim Board of Directors as co-General Counsel 

of the Guild with Tom Kennedy of New York. Thereafter, I was in 

constant contact with the Monrovia police department and the FBI in the 

chaotic days following Dr. Gertmenian’s removal to try to help ensure 

that evidence was preserved, and since then, I, along with many others, 

have been working on a daily basis to help this organization recover so 

that it can do its job of vigorously advancing the interests of professional 

jockeys. 

Let me just take a moment of personal privilege to say that it’s 

evident from what this committee does, I mean people get cynical about 

government and politics and all that sort of stuff, but the oversight role 

that you played made a real fundamental difference in this organization. 

But for what happened here last fall, I think that this organization would 

have been gone, completely gone by now. 

Today, I will fill the committee in on what we know about the 

conduct of Dr. Gertmenian and his apparent alter ego, Matrix Capital 

Associates. It has fallen on my shoulders, I drew the short straw, I guess, 

to assist with the various investigations that have arisen from Dr. 

Gertmenian’s tenure. It is the position of the Board of Directors that 

only through total openness and transparency can this organization 

restore its credibility with your committee, State regulators, the racing 

industry, and its own members. 

First of all, it was immediately obvious that Dr. Gertmenian and the 

Guild’s then General Counsel Lloyd Ownbey failed on a massive level to 

comply with your committee’s subpoena. I set about establishing a 

cooperative, professional, and mutually respectful relationship with your 

staff and began to send documents that were responsive to the subpoena 

to Washington. I also worked with the FBI, who had served a subpoena, 

to help them locate Dr. Gertmenian and to give them information on how 

to try to get compliance with their subpoena. 

To this date, we have sent thousands of pages of documents to your 

committee, and I have invited your staff to come to the Guild office in 

California to inspect documents and to interview employees. Until your 

investigation is formally concluded, you have our commitment that we 

will continue to provide your staff broad access to the Guild books and 

records. And I must say that I met with and have talked many times with 

Mr. Feddo, and this was a most cordial relationship, and it’s sad that it 
17

ever got to the place that it was. I find that incredibly baffling, or maybe 

not. 

Anyway, the following are the major findings of what occurred 

during the tenure of Dr. Gertmenian. There was a systematic effort to 

mislead the Board of Directors and membership about the financial state 

of the Guild. Dr. Gertmenian stated repeatedly that to Guild members 

and to the board that the Guild had accumulated a $3.5 million war chest. 

On the day he was fired, he told the senators that the Guild finances had 

never been better and again insisted that it had a $3.5 million war chest. 

He said this when he knew full well that the Guild assets were nearly 

totally depleted. 

In another example of this pattern of misleading conduct, Dr. 

Gertmenian hired an attorney to represent the Guild before this 

committee and told members of his Board of Directors that another labor 

organization was paying for the cost of the attorney, when in fact the 

Guild paid for the cost. As this committee uncovered, Dr. Gertmenian 

even attempted to assign an apparently inflated value to the services of 

consultants and even volunteers as a means of justifying the payments to 

Matrix. 

On the day that Dr. Gertmenian was fired, he caused more than 

$200,000 in checks to be issued to himself and Mr. Albert Fiss, leaving 

the Guild with just a few thousand dollars in the bank. These checks 

were written in direct violation of financial controls that were imposed 

by the Board of Directors prohibiting checks other than those to disabled 

riders to be issued in excess of $200 without the express written approval 

of the treasurer, and he had been following that in the week before. So it 

was clear that he had knowledge of it. 

He even arranged that employees loyal to him would receive layoff 

notices so that they would qualify for unemployment insurance benefits 

when they were in fact voluntarily quitting employment. This could 

have the effect, we’ll find out, of not only raising the unemployment 

insurance rates for the Guild but for past employers of those employees. 

In addition, they left with media rights documents that belonged to 

the Guild, which they only returned after I intervened with Dr. 

Gertmenian’s criminal defense lawyer; computers, which we eventually 

got back; and financial records, some of which I think are still missing; 

and such personal property, collectible types of things reported in the 

press that seem to have disappeared as well. 

Over the previous months and years, restricted trust accounts had 

been spent down that should have been maintained. These included trust 

accounts for health insurance reserves which were needed--which needed 

to be maintained in order to preserve the fiscal integrity of the Guild 

self-funded health insurance plan. You can’t have a self-funded health 
18

insurance plan and not have reserves against the day when claims exceed 

the premiums that you receive. 

Moreover, approximately $500,000 was depleted from savings 

accounts for individual jockeys that had been deposited with the Guild as 

an overpayment of dues. Some of these personal savings accounts had 

balances of thousands of dollars, and at this point, until we generate a 

budgetary surplus, we can only honor requests for withdrawals on a 

partial basis when funds are available. 

Matrix Capital Associates was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars 

while Dr. Gertmenian was being paid a salary for full-time employment. 

We suspect that little value was delivered by Matrix for the large sums of 

money that were paid out. 

In addition, associates of Dr. Gertmenian were paid tens of 

thousands of dollars for consulting fees that apparently resulted in the 

delivery of few actual services. 

Dr. Gertmenian offered select members of the Guild free health 

insurance, apparently in order to curry internal political support. Such 

promises were made without the knowledge of the Board of Directors, 

and of course, at any point in a self-funded health plan that people stop 

paying health insurance premiums but receive the benefits, it means 

you’re passing the cost along to everybody else. So you are imperiling 

the plan. It’s a clear problem. 

Dr. Gertmenian allowed jockeys who failed to pay health insurance 

premiums to remain covered by the plan. As a result, the amount of 

unpaid premiums reached a level of approximately $700,000. This of 

course meant that there was cost shifting to other jockeys who were 

actually paying their premiums, causing the Guild’s financial situation to 

worsen. 

Guild General Counsel Ownbey failed to inform his Board of 

Directors and apparently offered no legal advice to them whatsoever 

about the plainly oppressive terms of the personal services agreements 

with Dr. Gertmenian and Matrix. Mr. Ownbey appeared to act as Dr. 

Gertmenian’s personal attorney, not that of the Guild. 

Incidentally, when your committee subpoenas were delivered to the 

Guild and Matrix, I called Mr. Ownbey and told him, in my opinion, Dr. 

Gertmenian needed to secure separate legal counsel immediately since 

his interests and that of the Guild were separate and that Mr. Ownbey 

needed to represent the Guild’s interests separate and apart from that of 

the personal interests of Dr. Gertmenian and Matrix. That advice was 

evidently ignored. 

There were numerous--have I run out of time? 

MR. WHITFIELD. You have. About 3 minutes over. 

MR. BROAD. Would you like me to continue? 
19

MR. WHITFIELD. Why don’t you summarize? 

MR. BROAD. I’m sorry. Let me just conclude by the few remaining 

points. There were numerous acts of self-dealing in favoritism by Dr. 

Gertmenian, including things that we are just now investigating, like 

charging lots of meal expenses and so forth while he was not traveling. 

The Guild, as your committee noted, paid double rent. It rented two 

adjoining spaces, one occupied by Matrix, one occupied by the Guild, 

and it paid both sides’ rent, including a maintenance fee to Matrix, 

another little profit center, if you will, but there didn’t seem to be any 

maintenance being delivered for that. 

Basically, while Dr. Gertmenian professed to be an international 

expert in business operations, he failed to operate the Guild in the most 

basic manner consistent with common and well understood business 

principles. For example, a few months ago, I was horrified one morning 

when I found out that the Guild had had no workers comp insurance for 

the entire period that Dr. Gertmenian was there, which in California, I 

don’t know in other States, it’s a criminal offense to willfully fail to 

provide that insurance. These kind of things occurred. 

Finally, basic accounting practices were ignored, accounts were not 

kept up. We had no idea how much income the Guild had, who in 

particular had unpaid premiums for health insurance and who they were, 

and we’ve had to catch up to all of that. 

I believe this gives you a flavor for what occurred during the period. 

I am available to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you 

for allowing me to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Barry Broad follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BARRY BROAD, NATIONAL LEGAL COUNSEL, THE JOCKEYS’

GUILD

Chairman Whitfield and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Barry Broad and I am legal counsel and legislative representative of the 

Jockeys’ Guild in California. My firm was hired by former Guild National Manager John 

Giovanni in 1995 and I continued to represent the Jockeys’ Guild right through last fall. 

A few days after Wayne Gertmenian’s testimony before your Committee, I severed my 

relationship with the Guild, feeling that I could no longer represent its membership in 

good conscience so long as Dr. Gertmenian and his management firm, Matrix Capital 

Associates, were employed by the Jockeys’ Guild. I then volunteered my services to 

those members of the Jockeys’ Guild Senate and Board of Directors who wished to 

remove Dr. Gertmenian. I was present during the emergency meeting of the Jockeys’ 

Guild that was held by telephone conference call which resulted in the termination of Dr. 

Gertmenian. I was then appointed by the new interim Board of Directors as co-General 

Counsel of the Guild. Thereafter, I was in constant contact with the Monrovia Police 

Department and the FBI in the chaotic days following Dr. Gertmenian’s removal to try to 

help insure that evidence was preserved, and, since then, I, along with many others, have 

been working on a daily basis to help this organization recover so that it can do its job of 

vigorously advancing the interests of professional jockeys. 
20

Today, I will fill the Committee in on what we now know about the conduct of Dr. 

Gertmenian and his apparent alter ego, Matrix Capital Associates. It has fallen on my 

shoulders to assist with the various investigations that have arisen from Dr. Gertmenian’s 

tenure. It is the position of our Board of Directors that, only through total openness and 

transparency, can this organization restore its credibility with your Committee, state 

regulators, the racing industry, and its own members. 

First of all, it was immediately obvious that Dr. Gertmenian and the Guild’s then 

General Counsel, Lloyd Ownbey, failed on a massive level to comply with your 

Committee’s subpoena. I set about establishing a cooperative, professional, and mutually 

respectful relationship with your staff and began to send documents that were responsive 

to the subpoena to Washington. To date, we have sent thousands of pages of documents 

and I have invited your staff to come to the Guild’s office in California to inspect 

documents and interview employees. Until your investigation is formally concluded, you 

have our commitment that we will continue to provide your staff broad access to the 

Guild’s books and records. 

The following are the major findings of what occurred during the tenure of Dr.. 

Gertmenian: 

1. There was a systematic effort to mislead the Board of Directors and Membership 

about the financial state of the Guild. Dr. Gertmenian stated repeatedly that the 

Guild had accumulated a $3.5 million “war chest”. On the day he was fired, he 

told the Senators that the Guild’s finances had never been better and again 

insisted that it had a $3.5 million war chest. He said this when he knew full well 

that the Guild’s assets were nearly totally depleted. In another example of this 

pattern of misleading conduct, Dr. Gertmenian hired an attorney to represent the 

Guild before this Committee and told members of his Board of Directors that 

another labor organization was paying for the cost of that attorney when, in fact, 

the Guild paid for the cost. As this Committee uncovered, Dr. Gertmenian even 

attempted to assign an apparently inflated value to the services of consultants and 

even volunteers as a means of justifying the payments made to Matrix. 

2. On the day that Dr. Gertmenian was fired, he caused more than $200,000 in 

checks to be issued to himself and Mr. Albert Fiss, leaving the Guild with just a 

few thousand dollars in the bank. These checks were written in direct violation 

of financial controls that were imposed by the Board of Directors prohibiting 

checks, other than those to disabled riders, to be issued in excess of $200 without 

the express written approval of the Treasurer. He even arranged that employees 

loyal to him would receive lay-off notices, so that they would qualify for 

unemployment insurance benefits when they were, in fact, voluntarily quitting 

employment. This could have the effect of not only raising the unemployment 

insurance rates for the Guild but for past employers of those employees. 

3. Over the previous months and years, restricted trust accounts had been spent 

down that should have been maintained. These included trust accounts for health 

insurance reserves, which needed to be maintained in order to preserve the fiscal 

integrity of the Guild’s self-funded health insurance plan. Moreover, 

approximately $500,000 was depleted from the savings accounts for individual 

jockeys that had been deposited with the Guild as overpayment of dues. Some of 

these personal savings accounts had balances of thousands of dollars and, at this 

point, until we generate a budgetary surplus, we can only honor requests for 

withdrawals on a partial basis when funds are available. 
21

4. Matrix Capital Associates was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars while Dr. 

Gertmenian was being paid a salary for full-time employment. We suspect that 

little of value was delivered by Matrix for the large sums of money that were 

paid out. In addition, associates of Dr. Gertmenian were paid tens of thousands 

of dollars for consulting fees that, apparently, resulted in the delivery of few 

actual services. 

5. Dr. Gertmenian offered certain select members of the Guild free health insurance, 

apparently in order to curry internal political support. Such promises were made 

without the knowledge of the Board of Directors. 

6. Dr. Gertmenian allowed jockeys who had failed to pay health insurance 

premiums to remain covered by the plan. As a result, the amount of unpaid 

premiums reached a level of approximately $700,000. This, of course, meant 

that there was cost shifting to other jockeys, who were actually paying their 

premiums, causing the Guild’s financial situation to worsen. 

7. Guild General Counsel Ownbey failed to inform his Board of Directors and 

apparently offered no legal advice to them whatsoever about the plainly 

oppressive terms of the personal services agreement with Dr. Gertmenian and 

Matrix. Mr. Ownbey appeared to act as Dr. Gertmenian’s personal attorney, not 

that of the Guild. Incidentally, when your Committee’s subpoenas were 

delivered to the Guild and Matrix, I called Mr. Ownbey and told him that, in my 

opinion, Dr. Gertmenian needed to secure separate legal counsel, since his 

interests and that of the Guild were separate and that Mr. Ownbey needed to 

represent the Guild’s interests separate and apart from that of the personal 

interests of Dr. Gertmenian and Matrix. That advice was evidently ignored. 

8. There were numerous acts of self-dealing and favoritism by Dr. Gertmenian, 

including charging meal and entertainment expenses to the Guild when he was 

not traveling on Guild business. Dr. Gertmenian caused the Guild to pay for the 

office rent of the space adjoining the Guild’s office which was occupied by 

Matrix Capital Associates, a separate business entity, resulting in the Guild 

paying roughly double the rent for the space that it used. As if that weren’t 

enough, Matrix added a “maintenance fee” to the rent. However, there is no 

evidence that any maintenance services were actually provided by Matrix. 

Indeed, there was no written lease agreement between the Guild and Matrix or 

between the Guild and the property owner. Gertmenian also apparently permitted 

select employees to be reimbursed for personal expenses, including car repairs, 

dry cleaning, groceries, and other personal expenses. 

9. While Dr. Gertmenian professed to be an expert in business operations, he failed 

to operate the Guild in a manner consistent with adherence to even the most 

common and well understood business principals. For example, apparently 

during the entire period of his tenure, the Guild did not have a workers’ 

compensation insurance policy in place to cover its own employees. This 

exposed the Guild to enormous potential civil liability. In California, the failure 

to secure workers’ compensation insurance is a criminal offense. Fortunately, no 

employee of the Guild suffered a work related injury. Similarly, the Guild 

routinely failed to enter into written agreements for personal services agreements 

for its consultants and apparently did not even have a fee agreement with its 

General Counsel, Mr. Ownbey, contrary to California law and ethical standards. 
22

Matrix Capital Associates was paid a monthly fee, but did not submit invoices 

and did not specify what services were being provided. 

10. When Dr. Gertmenian was fired and the new management had access to the 

accounting system, it was apparent that basic accounting practices had been 

ignored. We did not even know which jockeys had paid their health insurance 

premiums and which had not. Large amounts of data related to jockey mounts 

had simply not been entered into the system, thereby making it impossible to 

ascertain how much money racetracks had forwarded to the Guild in the form of 

dues and health insurance premiums. 

I could go on and on, but I believe that you have the flavor of what occurred under 

the tenure of Dr. Gertmenian. 

I am available to answer any questions you might have. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Broad, thank you. I can assure you that 

there’s not anything you can tell us about Mr. Gertmenian that would 

surprise us because it was quite obvious that he was totally ripping off 

the Guild, and I do hope that the criminal investigations will continue 

and he will be charged with something. That’s not my decision to make. 

But I want to commend all of you for the great work that you have done 

in trying to maintain the integrity of the Guild and hopefully rebuild it 

because it certainly has a vital role to play in this industry. 

Mr. Velazquez, I want to ask you a couple of questions. You were 

injured recently at Keeneland, and one of the things that many of us have 

been focusing on, we know that this industry is fragmented, each State 

has different rules and each track operates in different ways. Recently, 

for example, there was an accident up in Turfway Park where a horse 

went down and the jockey was killed, and we know that there have been 

a number of deaths over the last 4 or 5 years. We also know that in the 

racing industry, it’s not unusual that horses are administered certain 

drugs before a race or at various times, and we know that that is always a 

challenge and jockeys frequently do not know what the horse has in his 

system. 

When your horse went down, that horse was euthanized, is that 

correct? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. That’s correct. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Do you know if a necropsy was performed on the 

horse? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. I’m sorry? 

MR. WHITFIELD. Do you know if a necropsy was performed on the 

horse. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. I don’t know. 

MR. WHITFIELD. It’s my understanding, I may be wrong, it’s my 

understanding a necropsy was not performed. Also, when the horse went 
23

down in Turfway and the jockey was killed up there, it’s my 

understanding that a necropsy was not performed. 

I do find it hard to imagine that there is not some uniform rule 

around the country that when these horses go down and jockeys go 

down, I mean, it would be very easy for three or four horses to go down 

if one goes down. I do think that something we want to continue to look 

at is this whole policy of necropsies on these horses that go down on the 

track. 

I am assuming that, as a jockey and someone whose life is dependent 

upon safety, that you would certainly welcome necropsies as a matter of 

course on every horse that has to be euthanized on the track. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. We decided, actually, we started doing our own 

research about how many horses have been breaking down and all this 

stuff. So for us to receive a piece of paper or some sort of response back 

that the situation with how the horses were treated afterwards or how 

many was broke down is very difficult for us to get any answers. 

Basically we don’t get-- 

MR. WHITFIELD. I know you don’t get any answers. The public 

doesn’t get any. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. We have been trying to implement new rules 

throughout the country that we get this information. Obviously, until this 

point, we haven’t got much. 

MR. WHITFIELD. It’s not going to be done until the race tracks 

and/or the racing authorities in each State or some Federal mandate 

demands that it be done. Obviously, one reason it is not being done is 

the cost involved. 

I’m assuming, Mr. Haire, that you would value necropsies being 

performed on these horses, is that correct? 

MR. HAIRE. Absolutely, sir. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Mr. Stupak had mentioned during his 

testimony that we are looking for ways to address this, and I do firmly 

believe from the analysis that I have done that the easiest, quickest way 

to address this issue on insurance would be in the Interstate Horseracing 

Act. I say that because the 1978 act which provided the foundation is for 

simulcasting where most wagers are being conducted today; that’s where 

most of the purses are coming from, that act allowed the horsemen’s 

group, and we know that there is a different horsemen’s group in every 

State, but predominantly it is the Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective 

Association; that they have veto power over the simulcast agreement 

between the track and the simulcastors. Because of that veto power, they 

receive an administrative fee for agreeing or not agreeing to the contract. 

The head of the Kentucky HBPA testified in Congress that the 

Kentucky HBPA alone receives right at a million dollars a year for 
24

simply agreeing to the contract. To be truthful, if you multiply that by 38 

States and jurisdictions and the money being paid to the horsemen’s 

group, who certainly have an interest in racing, but there isn’t any group 

in my view any more important to racing than jockeys, there is no reason 

that jockeys should not be able to get a part of that administrative fee, 

and whether it’s paid directly to them or to a local racing authority with a 

mandate that the authority adopt a policy, an insurance policy, I 

personally think that would be the easiest, quickest, best way to go. And 

I would just ask you all, you three and Mr. Saumell, if you want to 

testify, what you think about that concept? 

MR. BROAD. I think we wholeheartedly agree with that. The 

Jockeys’ Guild finances these various health and welfare programs from 

a variety of different sources, most of which are depending on 

maintaining, to be frank, an absolutely cordial relationship with those 

with whom we may have an adversarial position on health and welfare 

issues, and that makes it very difficult for us to do our job. We need to 

operate at a respectful hands-off kind of relationship, and that’s what 

changing the law would allow. 

MR. WHITFIELD. The reason the Horseracing Act is the way it is, is 

because the HBPA had a part in the adoption of the passage of that 

legislation, and I don’t think the jockeys were at the table. But would 

you support that kind of a concept, Mr. Haire? 

MR. HAIRE. Yes, sir. 

MR. WHITFIELD. What about you, Mr. Velazquez? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Absolutely, sir. I think it would give us the 

resources so we can help our members with the proper insurance. 

Let me add, sir, that we help to bring a lot of revenue to the race 

tracks and to the horsemen’s group also. I can add myself obviously as a 

jockey and being one of the top jockeys in the country, we bring a lot of 

money to the table by the way they sell the signal. Obviously not only 

by having the top jockeys and the signals sell the way they are, but they 

also need the lower jockeys that don’t ride that many horses because they 

need to have a full race, 10-horse field, so everybody contributes to it. I 

think we need that little piece of the table. 

MR. WHITFIELD. I mean, from my perspective, the HBPA in 

Kentucky does not have any dues-paying members and yet they are 

speaking for, they say trainers and horsemen groups or owners, and they 

are the ones receiving the million dollars a year, and they are not 

purchasing any insurance for anybody I can see, except their own 

officers and no one else, and they are filing a lot of lawsuits over a lot of 

issues that they don’t like to deal with. If you multiply it by the other 

States--I mean, the thing I like about it is it would not take any additional 

money from the race tracks, it would simply be a redistribution of the fee 
25

that is already being paid. And I still do not understand why the 

horsemen’s group would be the exclusive group to receive the money. 

Now let me ask you, the sad thing about what’s happened to the 

Jockeys’ Guild, you all had a disability fund that had at least over a 

million dollars in it at one time; is that correct? 

MR. HAIRE. Yes, sir. 

MR. WHITFIELD. I’m sorry, Mr. Saumell. 

MR. SAUMELL. A million-three. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Then you had the race tracks, some of them had 

policies that they were paying for in some States in addition to the 

disability fund; is that correct? 

MR. HAIRE. Paying for it. 

MR. WHITFIELD. They were providing the coverage. 

MR. HAIRE. In workmans comp States, yes, sir. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Some of the tracks were even making payments to 

Jockeys’ Guild in cash payments; were they not? 

MR. HAIRE. The cash payments, the media rights. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Media rights, yes. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. And then, of course, after Gertmenian, the 

disability fund was wiped out, the tracks lost confidence in the Guild. I 

guess the media payments are still being paid to the Guild; is that 

correct? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Some of them. Some of the race tracks. By the 

end of last year, a lot of them stopped paying, and that’s why we are in 

the situation we are in right now. 

MR. WHITFIELD. How many race tracks are there in the country? 

Does anybody know the exact number? Okay, we’ll get that. My 

understanding is that some tracks voluntarily provide insurance 

coverage, which we applaud, other tracks do not, so there’s no 

uniformity whatsoever. So this is definitely an area that there needs to be 

some strong leadership in, and there is enough money in this industry to 

address this problem. And, to me, it’s not so much about the racing 

industry per se, but we’re talking about health insurance here. When 

jockeys are injured and there is no coverage, then they become a part of 

the Medicaid system, and the taxpayers pick up the fee, and that’s 

running out of control, and we have a pool of money here that can 

address these problems, in my view. 

So I recognize Mr. Stupak for any questions he may have. 

MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Velazquez, you indicated in your testimony that there’s this new 

jointly administered program to fund a fund for permanently disabled 

riders. Who pays into that fund? 
26

MR. VELAZQUEZ. It’s going to be in the form of charities. There are 

going to be charity events, and the racetracks are going to donate some 

part of the money for disabled riders. 

MR. STUPAK. Would this be a charity sponsored by the Guild, the 

tracks? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. All of us. All of us, yes. 

MR. STUPAK. Had any thought been given to doing something like 

we saw this weekend for the Kentucky Derby, this 24 carat gold plated - 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. I saw that on TV. Obviously, I’m hurt, so I was 

watching that on TV. 

MR. STUPAK. What did you think? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. When they announced where the proceeds were 

going to, my mouth just dropped. It’s great that we’re doing something, 

and I support it a hundred percent because I have done charities for 

retired horses myself, but we have human lives, and we have families, 

and we have children that depend on, and in this industry there is so 

much money, and it saddens me that they forget us. They always put the 

jockeys to the bottom of the list. It’s always the last thing they could 

think about. 

Here we are, the human lives, a huge part of the business, and we 

always are the last ones to get a percentage of the percentage of the 

percentage. 

MR. STUPAK. Have your charity check with Woodford Reserve, 

maybe they will do something for you this year. Mint from Morocco, ice 

from the Arctic Circle and sugar from the South Pacific, all served up in 

that cup with a silver straw. Sounds pretty intriguing. 

What do riders have for, including exercise riders, what do they have 

for retirement? Social Security? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. I’m sorry? 

MR. STUPAK. Exercise riders, what do they have? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. No retirement, sir. 

MR. STUPAK. All based on your earnings? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Earnings and whatever you pay into Social 

Security. 

MR. STUPAK. The Chairman asked you if tracks were withholding 

payments for a while, probably because they lost, I don’t know why, I 

guess we would have to ask tracks, but some are paying again and others 

are not. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. Some of them started paying the money 

received from media rights. 

MR. STUPAK. Is that mandatory? 
27

MR. VELAZQUEZ. That’s the problem that we had. The contract that 

we had in the past with the race tracks for the media rights, it was called-

-not mandatory. What was the word they use in this country? 

MR. BROAD. Let me explain what it was. Historically, it was a 

contract negotiated with the TRA. But then to make it enforceable 

against any individual track, the Guild would then have to go from track 

to track to track, and I think there are over a hundred tracks, basically to 

try to make it binding on each particular track. Otherwise, it was 

voluntary. 

During the period of Dr. Gertmenian, and maybe slightly before, 

these individually binding agreements were allowed to lapse so that, at 

this point, none of them are actually obligated contractually to pay 

anything. Some of them are paying voluntarily the amount they owed 

under the existing agreement. 

MR. STUPAK. So there’s no real recourse. 

MR. BROAD. No, there’s not. 

MR. HAIRE. Now that some of these race tracks with the million 

dollar policy, or half a million, they are not paying the media rights 

because they are paying the premiums, and that’s their responsibility, we 

feel. That’s the cost of doing business to take care of these jockeys, 

cover them, but now I guess they don’t think we have media rights. 

Now they are saying that’s always been a question in their mind, and 

now some race tracks are paying, and there are a lot of race tracks that 

are paying. 

MR. STUPAK. But if a race track doesn’t pay, you have no recourse 

and riders, I should say jockeys, have to ride if they are going to get paid, 

if they’re going to make a living; right? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Exactly, yes. Basically, a lot of the money is used 

for health insurance. Media rights is money--obviously, it was used, 

most of it, for disabled riders, and part of the money will go for health 

insurance. It was set up for many years. Obviously with the health 

insurance coverage, it’s tripled for the last 4 years. The cost of living is 

much higher. 

MR. STUPAK. I want to ask more questions about the tracks. Mr. 

Saumell, you’re the Jockeys’ Guild representative for riders in West 

Virginia at Mountaineer and Charles Town. 

MR. SAUMELL. Yes, sir. 

MR. STUPAK. Do you visit the jockeys’ room at the racetracks 

regularly? 

MR. SAUMELL. I’m probably at Mountaineer six times a year, and 

Charles Town six to eight times a year. 

MR. STUPAK. Have you been to Mountaineer and Charles Town 

since our hearing in last November? 
28

MR. SAUMELL. I was there twice this year already. 

MR. STUPAK. I want to ask you about exhibit number 3. Is there a 

book with some exhibits? It would be a binder. 

MR. SAUMELL. Number 3, sir? 

MR. STUPAK. Number 3. In there, it says document number 3 is 

titled: Questions from the Honorable Bart Stupak and answers from Ms. 

Rose Mary Williams. I refer you to question 11, it reads, “have you or 

anyone at Mountaineer that reports to you ever pressured a jockey that 

objected to track or weather conditions to ride in a way”--and it says 

please also note that the answer is supplied by Ms. Williams--and she 

says, “I have never pressured a jockey to ride if a jockey objected on the 

basis of weather or track conditions; to my knowledge no one who 

reported to me has done so either.” 

Let me ask you, in your experience in talking with these jockeys, do 

you have reason to believe what Ms. Williams told this committee last 

November about not pressing jockeys to ride? 

MR. SAUMELL. I would say that’s an inadequate statement. 

MR. STUPAK. Inadequate statement. What would you base your 

opinion that this was an inadequate statement that she gave the 

committee? 

MR. SAUMELL. Riders have been pressured to ride under inadequate 

conditions. 

MR. STUPAK. In what way? 

MR. SAUMELL. Well, when a track condition is bad, it’s bad. And it 

comes down to when riders collectively want to join together and cancel 

racing, it’s come to the point where, in Mountaineer, they’re not allowed 

to do that. 

MR. STUPAK. What do you mean they are not allowed to? How 

would they be forced to ride if they don’t feel it’s safe to ride? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. They tell the riders go somewhere else. 

MR. SAUMELL. They are not allowed to collectively join together 

and discuss the conditions of the racetrack. 

MR. STUPAK. If I’m a rider at Mountaineer, and I feel I don’t want 

to ride, do I have a contract, or is my ability to earn my income based 

upon every race and every ride I may take? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. You have to go and ride, otherwise you 

don’t get paid. When you get the conditions of the track unsafe or 

whatever reason it is, now the guys are coming back, look, the track isn’t 

safe, unsafe for the horses, unsafe for the jockeys themselves, so now 

they have to talk to management to agree on something; we can’t 

continue racing. Well, you can be forced. If you don’t go and ride, you 

have got to be out of here. 
29

MR. STUPAK. I know very little about your profession, but if I’m 

riding, don’t I work for an owner of a horse, don’t I work for that owner 

of that horse? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, yes. 

MR. STUPAK. Wouldn’t it be in my best interest to say not only is it 

unsafe but wouldn’t it also be unsafe for the horse? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. 

MR. STUPAK. Can race track owners or owners or managers at let’s 

say Mountaineer or Charles Town, if I said I’m not going to race, could 

they assign a different rider to race my horse? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. 

MR. STUPAK. But isn’t the contract or the agreement to ride between 

me and the owner? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Basically, if you’re not riding, you say I’m not 

riding for whatever the reason. They go and ask the next guy. If you 

don’t ride here, you have to go somewhere else. Basically what happens 

is they usually get the guy that does not get to ride that many races or 

does not do as well. So now he’s put in a bad place where, if I don’t ride 

here, I have to go somewhere else. 

MR. STUPAK. But if I feel as a jockey that it’s unsafe for me, it’s 

also unsafe for the horse. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yeah, but they add pressure to it. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. It happens everywhere in the country. 

MR. STUPAK. Sure. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. I was told 3 years ago on one racetrack if I didn’t 

do what they wanted me to do--I’m a jockey. The last 3 years in the 

country I was told by somebody, one of the managers, that if I didn’t take 

a picture after the winner’s circle, which has nothing to do with me, I 

was not to ever ride on that racetrack again. This is me, that-- 

MR. STUPAK. So what--without some kind of legal rights and, as 

I’ve mentioned before, collective bargaining, National Labor Relations 

Board, what recourse do you have now? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. What resources? 

MR. STUPAK. What recourse. How can you stand up to the track 

owners or managers? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. None. You can’t do anything. 

MR. SAUMELL. We have no collective bargaining rights. You meet, 

and you decide, the riders, take it upon themselves because the riders are 

the ones that if it’s that dangerous, they don’t want to ride -- 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. That’s the only way we take care of one another. 

The message is, we go out there and try to kill ourselves, or we take care 

of one another and just walk out of here all together. That’s the only 

way. 
30

MR. STUPAK. Mr. Velazquez, you’re one of the top riders. 

Wouldn’t it be in the track’s best interest to keep you happy and keep 

you riding at that track? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Somebody else will take my place, sir. 

MR. STUPAK. Sure. But aren’t you sort of a draw, much like the 

horse you may be running or riding? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. I’m sorry? 

MR. STUPAK. Aren’t you, yourself, being one of the top jockeys in 

the country, being a draw? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yes. 

MR. STUPAK. Wouldn’t people love to see you ride? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, I would believe so. But if I would not go out 

there, they will put somebody else to fill my place. They will take the 

chances. The revenue would be lower, obviously, but they still have the 

race. That’s how they break it up all the time. 

MR. STUPAK. That’s what I’m learning in this third hearing we’ve 

had now, Mr. Chairman. I’m finding it interesting as I’m learning more 

and more about this industry. Thank you. 

MR. WHITFIELD. I want to ask a few more questions. 

Mr. Velazquez, we had talked about how you work for the owner of the 

horse, but I think practically speaking, while technically that may be true, 

in actual practice you really work for the trainer, don’t you? I mean, 

doesn’t the trainer really make a lot of the decisions? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. A lot of them do, but a lot of owners do as well. 

It has to be a communication between the trainer and the owners. I 

mean, basically we work for everybody in the racetrack. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. I mean, we have to follow the rules. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Right. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. We can get fined if we’re not on time for 

whatever reason. We can be thrown out of the racetrack for whatever 

reason if you don’t follow the rules. We get fined if you get up--let’s say 

that I’m going down the lane, and my horse is not going well, and he’s 

just not going well. And I know for a fact the horse is not going well. 

Now I have to hold him together so he doesn’t break down, so he doesn’t 

fall down. 

MR. WHITFIELD. If your horse is not going well during the warm-up, 

don’t you have the option of just saying-- 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Oh, I could do that, too, but it would have to be 

really bad for the horse not to race though. But it could happen during 

the race. 

The horse could warm up right now, sir. You gallop to the gate, the 

horse warms up perfect, nothing wrong with it. It would break from the 
31

gate and would clip another horse’s heels, or hit themselves or whatever 

reason; it could stumble out of the gate. Now the horse is not going well. 

Now you are taking the chance, letting him see how it feels. Now 

they’re changing the stride. Now they’re not going well at all. So let’s 

say I’m going towards the wire now, and he’s not feeling very well, it’s 

getting wobbly underneath myself, and I have to stand up before the 

wire, and God forbid lose, third or fourth place, and they are calling to 

the stewards or racetrack or whatever it may be. Now I’m getting fined 

because I’m standing up before the wire because I cost the bettors the 

place. 

So who am I working for? I’m working for the owners. I’m 

working for the racetrack. 

MR. WHITFIELD. So you would be fined. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. I’m getting fined by just trying to save myself, 

saving the horse, obviously. I think more damage if I continue riding the 

horse. 

MR. WHITFIELD. How much of a fine? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. It could be from $100 to $250. It all depends on 

where you are. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Were you scheduled to ride in the Derby 

before your accident? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, sir. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Who were you scheduled to ride? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. The horse that finished second. Bluegrass Cat. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah, Bluegrass Cat. Okay. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. By the way, I’m speaking here because I think a 

voice needs to be heard, and this is going to hurt me more than anything 

else. 

People, they’re very influential and very powerful in the business, 

that I know for the fact me talking to you and the way I’m talking and 

exposing all this out, there are people that would never ride me again, 

maybe take a year or two. I mean, I was warned by Gary Bailey, Jerry 

Stevens when I took this job early January, December, be careful what 

you said because there will be people in this industry that never ride you 

again. 

MR. WHITFIELD. You are taking a position with the Jockeys’ Guild, 

you could theoretically be blacklisted by certain people. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Well, could be. At least I have a good job that I 

have really good owners that I ride for, and I have a good trainer that I 

have good relationship, and, I just didn’t believe that something like that 

would happen to me. But, I’m going to take my chances and see what 

happens, and whatever comes with it, I think I’m a big boy and that I 

take whatever comes to me. 
32

MR. WHITFIELD. Well, we know it’s a dangerous sport. We know 

it’s a popular sport. We know there’s a lot of money in it. And I think 

all of us have a responsibility to do everything we can to make it as safe 

as possible with the guidelines and provide adequate insurance for people 

involved, and I think there’s enough money to do that. 

How many jockeys are there in the U.S.? 

MR. SAUMELL. Approximately 1,800 that are licensed. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Eighteen hundred? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Twelve hundred riders actually do ride like--the 

races, yeah. 

MR. WHITFIELD. So, 1,800 jockeys and warm-up riders, is that what 

we’re saying? Or 1,800 jockeys? 

MR. HAIRE. Eighteen hundred riders who are licensed. 

MR. BROAD. Some of them ride very few races. Would you say, 

gentlemen, it’s about 1,200 are the ones that are riding maybe more than 

100 races a year or something, ride the vast majority? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. A lot of them, they carry jockey license, those 

could be S.S.I. riders and the--also, but they have a license where they 

can go and ride a race or two. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Let’s say that Mr. Stupak and I are jockeys, which 

no one would ever hire us, but if we’re jockeys, we can voluntarily pay 

our $4 mount fee to the Jockeys’ Guild. We don’t have to do it. 

MR. HAIRE. That’s correct. 

MR. WHITFIELD. It’s up to us. If you can do it. Hopefully we’re in 

a position you can get insurance. 

MR. HAIRE. Representation. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Okay. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Yes, sir. Can I have another minute, another find 

that I have just last year to see who will I be working for, because I don’t 

understand it if it’s just the owner or the trainer or the racetrack. 

Let me tell you that last year, it was the fall last year--the year 

before, I’m sorry. This is about a year and a half ago. Obviously I ride a 

lot of horses for the owners. I don’t remember which one it was, and he 

put a few horses up. Just open up. To tell you the truth, I hate it. I don’t 

like working all day, and I have to go work at night. 

So I was supposed to go and ride the stake. So he named me on a 

couple horses before the stake, and he ended up scratching the horse and 

the stake. So he told me, look, you don’t have to go. I’m going to take 

you off the other horses. And I was naming a horse a friend of mine 

which I didn’t have to go. I didn’t have any commitment to go because 

that’s a place I don’t like to go. So he said to me, you don’t have to go. 
33

But the next day I’m called by the stewards and the Meadowlands, 

and they told me that I needed to pay a fine because I didn’t complete my 

business. I didn’t fulfill my-- 

MR. SAUMELL. Your obligation. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. My obligation. And I said, excuse me, sir? I 

wasn’t even supposed to go there. I was named on the horses by my 

trainer, who told me that I didn’t have to go. So I talked to him myself. 

I said, what happened? They’re fining me for not going that night. He 

said, I told them I was taking you off the horses. If anyone needed to be 

fined, it was me, because I was the one that put you on the horses. 

Well, I didn’t pay the fine, sir, because I didn’t think it was my fault 

by whatever. So a month later they called--actually, it was Aqueduct. A 

month later they called, Aqueduct Racetrack. The steward called me in. 

If I did not pay the fine, I was not allowed to ride in New York because I 

didn’t pay the fine in Jersey. 

So who am I working for? I mean, we have so many bosses, you 

don’t know where it’s coming from. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah, I understand. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. Ultimately I ended up paying the fine so I could 

ride at Aqueduct. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you for sharing that with us. That 

does provide some additional input. 

MR. SAUMELL. I just would like to clarify a statement earlier 

because I noted Johnny has--rides a lot of different racetracks and a lot of 

higher-quality racetracks than some of the ones that I represent, but when 

I was trying to get to the fact about Mountaineer, if their conditions 

aren’t up to the standards of the rest of the racetracks in the country, they 

are below most standards. The racetrack and the track superintendent 

might be one of the worst in the country. Talking to him, you get no 

response; and the jockey get no respect there whatsoever. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Could you give us some examples of something 

that’s below standard? 

MR. SAUMELL. Standard? Well, the clods can be about as big as 

this microphone on the base of it, a clod that big where-- 

MR. WHITFIELD. Ordinary clod on the track? 

MR. SAUMELL. Yeah. All over the racetrack. And they’ll tell you 

they’re not there. I say, well, I guess everybody else just doesn’t see 

them, or all the jockeys are wrong because-- 

MR. WHITFIELD. Is there any uniform reporting of accidents on a 

racetrack? 

MR. SAUMELL. Well, in 2000, Mountaineer had the highest 

accidents in the United States. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Do you know the number? 
34

MR. SAUMELL. Thirty-one percent of all the accidents in the United 

States happened in Mountaineer in 2000. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thirty-one percent of all the accidents on the 

tracks in the U.S. happened on Mountaineer? 

MR. SAUMELL. Um-hum, and that was by Mather & Co. 

MR. HAIRE. I used to attend that racetrack about 3 years ago, 3 or 4 

years ago. When I started going there, the riders right away would come 

to me and say, Darrell, you don’t know what goes on here. We are so 

intimidated in the middle of winter when the racetrack’s bad, the 

weather’s bad, the general manager would come in and just tell us, 

basically you need to go out there and ride; otherwise pack your tack and 

leave. And they would be intimidated. That’s all I would hear. They 

would leave and they had nowhere else to go. 

So they were more or less had to make a living and go out there 

against their will. But they’re telling you, if you don’t like it, then leave. 

We don’t need you here. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Well, are there plenty of jockeys that would ride? 

Wouldn’t that stop their race meet if the jockeys left? 

MR. SAUMELL. Well, I’ll give you an example, sir. Every other 

racetrack in the country where slots have been implemented, the racing 

colony has progressively changed and gotten better and better and better. 

The racing colony at Mountaineer is the same racing colony that they’ve 

had the last 10 years. Riders don’t go to Mountaineer. There has to be a 

reason, because there’s an awful lot of money given away, but you don’t 

see new faces. If you go to Charles Town or Prairie Meadows or 

Delaware Park, some of the top riders in the country are going to those 

racetracks to ride. You don’t get the top riders in the country going to 

Mountaineer to ride. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. We will certainly get into more in this, 

and we want to maintain dialogue with you all. 

I want to ask one more question, and then I will recognize Mr. 

Stupak. And I haven’t talked to Mr. Stupak in great detail about this, 

but if Mr. Stupak and I came to an agreement and introduced legislation 

to amend the Interstate Horse Racing Act so that the jockeys had some 

say so over approving the simulcast agreement; and as a result of that, 

you received a certain percentage of the money that the horsemen’s 

group receives, and/or the racing authority received that with a mandate 

that they provide insurance for the jockeys, for the backside people and 

so forth, conceptually, is that something that you all could support? 

Recognizing that there’s some details to-- 

MR. HAIRE. Absolutely. Absolutely. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. I support it, sir; but I have to say that it’s not 

going to sit very well for my business, if you will. It’s going to be a lot 
35

of horsemen who will be mad about, that they’re losing their revenue, 

and they’re going to take it out somewhere. 

But also, I think there’s a lot of issues they should be covering also. 

They put it on and wear a helmet and risk their lives as well by working 

in the racetrack. I think they should be covered also. 

MR. WHITFIELD. I haven’t really figured out myself who the 

horsemen’s group really represents, since they have no dues-paying 

members. 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. So it’s very difficult for us. I support anything 

that’s going to help our Guild and our members; and obviously, we need 

some sort of resources that they will help better to--to support disabled 

riders and their families, obviously. So it’s just a very touchy situation 

when we go and lose something like that against the horsemens. 

MR. WHITFIELD. I know, but let me just say this. But if the jockeys 

had been organized back in 1978 and were sitting there working on this 

legislation, it would have been very easy to have included them as well 

as the horsemen’s group as a recipient of some of these funds. 

MR. HAIRE. I’m a little confused about how that--we weren’t even 

included. I guess the jockeys aren’t included--or not horsemen. Jockeys 

aren’t horsemen? We were never even included. And when I bring this 

up to some horsemen, they’ll say, well, you are included, Darrell, in the 

purses. You know-- 

MR. WHITFIELD. They’re included in the purses, too. 

MR. HAIRE. We had no say-so, and I guess jockeys aren’t horsemen. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Well, I’ll recognize Mr. Stupak. 

MR. STUPAK. Mr. Broad, last hearing or so I remember hearing 

something about an endowment fund that the guild had. And it seems to 

me that contributions were supposed to be made; nothing could be paid 

out until it reached a certain limit. What has happened to that fund? 

Was it funded during Dr. Gertmenian’s reign, or what happened there? 

MR. BROAD. Money was transferred from the Disabled Jockeys 

Fund that the Guild had into that endowment. Fortunately the money 

was preserved in it. There was also additional money that came in as a 

result of legislation that we got passed in California that was adding 

money to that endowment. 

We did have to go through a little struggle after November to get 

new people elected to the Board of Directors of that endowment; and we 

finally succeeded in getting Mr. Shapiro, the Chair of the CHRB; and 

John is on there, Velazquez; Darrell is an ex officio member. Who else 

did we get on there? Lafitte and Kay--so that we felt confident that it 

was--there was great resistance from Mr. Fiss about leaving. We got him 

to resign, and so we feel that money is safe. What’s a little problematic 

is its bylaws remain the same, and it can’t pay out anything until it 
36

reaches $10 million in the corpus of that endowment, and we probably 

would need that sooner than that. 

MR. STUPAK. Where are you now with the corpus? How much? 

MR. BROAD. I believe it’s about $2 million. 

MR. STUPAK. Long ways to go. 

MR. BROAD. Is it 1.5? 

MR. VELAZQUEZ. 1.3 and change. 

MR. BROAD. 1.3, all right. 

MR. STUPAK. So it’s a long ways to go. 

MR. BROAD. It’s got a long ways to go. 

MR. STUPAK. The Chairman said in his opening statement--and I 

can’t remember exactly. He said something like $116- or $161 million. 

Almost was his wage and weekly. 

MR. WHITFIELD. One hundred nineteen on the Derby alone. 

MR. STUPAK. One hundred nineteen in the Derby alone. But there’s 

no workman’s compensation in Kentucky for riders, right? 

MR. HAIRE. No, sir. Almost. Almost. 

MR. BROAD. And what’s worse, we’re facing a problem in 

Louisiana, which is a State without workers’ compensation, where 

someone has introduced legislation that is moving through the Louisiana 

legislature that would also make it impossible for jockeys to sue for 

negligence. So they could neither recover for negligence, like if they got 

poor medical treatment, or get workers’ comp. 

MR. STUPAK. Other than this benefit you put together through your 

charitable organization to help raise some money for those people who 

are permanently disabled, has any other measures come forward since 

we’ve had our last hearing--I think the last one was in November--to help 

out the jockeys? Anything further to--any other States talk about 

workers’ comp, try to run some legislation? Any other innovative ways 

to try to help you out? 

MR. BROAD. Yeah. In the State of Ohio, several of the tracks 

actually went out and created--under a kind of law sort of unique to 

Ohio--which allows independent contractors to buy workers’ comp on 

themselves, and a couple of Ohio tracks created a program in which they 

assisted the jockeys in purchasing the insurance and basically signed an 

agreement that they would pay the premium. 

MR. STUPAK. Who’d pay the premium, the tracks? 

MR. BROAD. The tracks. 

MR. STUPAK. So would it be the regular riders, or if Mr. Velazquez 

came and rode in Ohio, would he be covered under that ride, or only 

those regularly riding? 

MR. BROAD. It would be anyone who rides there, I believe. 
37

MR. VELAZQUEZ. That’s the problem. I don’t think we’re 

completely secure on that yet. 

MR. HAIRE. My understanding is they do have to sign up when they 

do come in to ride; they have someone that’s waiting to sign them up. 

MR. STUPAK. Ohio tried. What happened? Did it work? 

MR. BROAD. It seems to be working. Listen, we’ll take it any way 

we can get it. I mean, at this stage if we can get people covered for 

workers’ comp--because even with $1 million of insurance benefits, if 

you’re in an accident and you’re a quadriplegic, for example, you can get 

to $1 million and blow through $1 million of healthcare coverage in the 

first year or so. And workers’ comp covers you for the loss of income 

and so forth and gives you lifetime medical care. So it’s far superior. 

MR. STUPAK. Let me ask you this: You had the Kentucky Derby, 

and Kentucky doesn’t have any kind of workers’ comp for the riders. 

What do you have next, Preakness? Preakness, do they have workers’ 

comp there? And in Belmont. So the only big one left is the Kentucky 

Derby we have to get. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Four or five States have workers’ comp programs. 

MR. BROAD. Mandated. 

MR. SAUMELL. New Jersey, New York, Maryland. 

MR. HAIRE. California and Ohio. 

MR. BROAD. And California since 1940. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Right. And this is a pretty old sport. 

MR. BROAD. Yeah. 

MR. WHITFIELD. There’s not a lot of fast action on this. 

Well, listen, thank you all so much. And we look forward to 

maintaining contact with you as we move forward. And if there’s any 

additional information you think would be helpful to us, we would 

appreciate your letting us know. 

And I would just ask one other question, Mr. Broad. Do you have 

any current information on the law enforcement investigation, Federal or 

State or local, as it relates to Mr. Gertmenian? 

MR. BROAD. I believe that the local police department has deferred 

to the FBI. The FBI is continuing its investigation. Beyond that, I don’t 

know the state of their investigation or how far they’ve gotten or what 

more they need. Every time they ask for information, we give it to them; 

and we have supplied them, for example, with computers that we’ve 

received so that they can do analysis of the computers and that sort of 

thing; but we don’t know whether they’re close to-- 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. 

MR. BROAD. --the end or whatever. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Well, thank you all very much. 
38

MR. STUPAK. Thank you very much. 

MR. WHITFIELD. This time I’d like to call our second panel, which 

includes Ms. Rose Mary Williams, who is the Director of Racing for the 

Mountaineer Race Track & Gaming Resort in West Virginia. 

And, Ms. Williams, thank you very much for being here today. I’m 

sorry that we felt like a subpoena was necessary, but we genuinely 

appreciate your being here. Now, I know that we wanted you to be here 

probably more than you wanted to come. So I don’t know if you have an 

opening statement that you would like to make or-- 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, sir. I’m just here to answer your questions. 

MR. WHITFIELD. All right. Well, then. As you know, this is an 

Oversight and Investigations hearing, and it is our policy to take 

testimony under oath. And, of course, under the rules of the House and 

the rules of this committee, you are entitled to be represented by legal 

counsel. And do you have legal counsel here today? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I do, sir. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And who is that? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Mr. Stan Brandd. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Mr. Stan Bran. Okay. And he will not be 

testifying, but will be giving you legal advice. So if you would stand, I 

would like to swear you in at this time. 

[Witness sworn.] 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. Ms. Williams, first of all, 

we’d like to ask this question. The earlier panel referred to and said that 

31 percent of all accidents on racetracks in the country occurred at 

Mountaineer last year. Is that accurate, or do you have any comment on 

that? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I do not know that that is accurate. I will comment 

that Mountaineer runs more races than any track in the country. We run 

10 races a day. We run about 232 days a year. A lot of tracks only run a 

30-day meet. 

MR. WHITFIELD. So you run 10 races a day, 232 days a year. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Approximately, yes. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, what about the comment that the 

Mountaineer track is below the standards of most other racetracks from a 

safety issue? Do you have a comment about that? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t know where that’s coming from. I know 

that right around 2000, we redid our track down to the base. We put in a 

new limestone base, and we resurface every year. 

MR. WHITFIELD. How many accidents occurred at Mountaineer 

track last year? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t know that off the top of my head, but I can 

get that information for you. 
39

MR. WHITFIELD. But you are the Director of Racing. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I am. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Whose responsibility is it to keep up with those 

numbers? 

MS. WILLIAMS. That actually goes through our legal department. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Well, would you provide the committee with the 

number of accidents that occurred on the track last year? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I sure will. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, if a horse goes down, is euthanized 

on the track, is a necropsy performed on the horse? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Not that I’m aware of. That falls under the West 

Virginia Racing Commission and the State vet. 

MR. WHITFIELD. So the track does not have the authority to do a 

necropsy if it decides to do so? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, sir. It goes through the State veterinarian. He’s 

in control of that. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And no necropsy is performed? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Not that I’m aware of. 

MR. WHITFIELD. You would be aware of it, though, if it was on your 

track? 

MS. WILLIAMS. If I was paying the bill, absolutely I would be aware 

of it. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And you are not paying any bills? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, I’m not. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And what do they do with the carcass of a horse 

that is euthanized on the track? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It is taken to a landfill, I believe. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Because I think the necropsies should be 

done because you can often tell what caused the accident. Would you 

agree with that? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I agree with that. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, who negotiates the simulcast contract 

for Mountaineer? 

MS. WILLIAMS. For the exports? 

MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

MS. WILLIAMS. That would be Debbie House. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, the horsemen’s group under the 

Interstate Horse Racing Act within the State of West Virginia, is that the 

HBPA or is that TODLA or-- 

MS. WILLIAMS. That’s HBPA. 

MR. WHITFIELD. HBPA. And do you know what amount of money 

they receive each year for their administrative fee for approving the 

simulcast contract? 
40

MS. WILLIAMS. On the simulcast race, they get half of the agreed-to 

rate. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And what is the agreed-to rate? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It can vary. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Is it around 2 or 3 percent? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yeah. It’s as low as 2-1/2 to 3. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And do you know approximately the dollar figure 

for that each year? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Not off the top of my head, I do not. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Would you provide the committee with that exact 

number? 

MR. WHITFIELD. Do you have any idea what the number is? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Just for the simulcast alone? 

MR. WHITFIELD. Yeah. 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, I do not. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Well, we would ask you to provide that to 

the committee. 

MS. WILLIAMS. I will. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Now, who owns Mountaineer Race Track? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It is owned by MTR Gaming. 

MR. WHITFIELD. MTR Gaming? And is that a West Virginia 

corporation or a Delaware or what? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I think it was incorporated in Delaware. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Delaware. 

And how many tracks does MTR own? 

MS. WILLIAMS. We own Scioto Downs, Mountaineer, Jackson 

Harness--we’re 90 percent in Jackson Harness. We have the license to 

build Presque Isle Downs in Erie, Pennsylvania, and North Metro in 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

MR. WHITFIELD. So a total of how many tracks? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It will be five when everything’s up. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Five. And is MTR a publicly traded company? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, it is. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And who’s the Chairman? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Ted Arneault. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Ted Arneault. Is that A-R-N-O-U-- 

MS. WILLIAMS. A-R-N-E-A-U-L-T. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. And at this time how much insurance does 

MTR or Mountaineer provide for jockeys that might be injured on the 

track in an accident? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Currently it’s $1 million. 

MR. WHITFIELD. A million dollars. And when did that become 

effective? 
41

MS. WILLIAMS. I believe it was at the end of 2005. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. So any jockey that’s--is there any kind of 

deductible for the jockey, or is he covered from first dime spent? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, sir. There’s no deductible. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Okay. And does Mountaineer pay these 

image payments to the Jockeys’ Guild that was referred to earlier? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, sir. We do not. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Do not. Some tracks evidently pay that, and some 

do not. How is it determined who pays it and who does not? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It was done through an agreement with the 

Thoroughbred Racing Association, the TRA, and members of the TRA 

agreed to that, from my understanding. There was a contract, I believe. 

MR. WHITFIELD. A contract between, or an agreement between the 

tracks and the TRA. 

MS. WILLIAMS. And TRA. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And so not every track in the country entered into 

that agreement, I take it. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Not every track is a member of the TRA. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Are you all a member of the TRA? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No. We are a member of the NTRA. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Oh, you are a member of the NTRA. That’s the 

National Thoroughbred Racing Association? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And NTRA, what is that? 

MS. WILLIAMS. National Thoroughbred Racing Association. The 

other one is the Thoroughbred Racing Association. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. So the NRA--National Thoroughbred 

Racing--I mean, National Racing Association is an association of 

racetracks? 

MS. WILLIAMS. That’s correct. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And the NTRA is the one that D.G. Van Clief is 

the President of; is that correct? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. I think he just resigned, but-- 

MR. WHITFIELD. But this payment for images of jockeys is made 

with, through the agreement with the NRA? 

MS. WILLIAMS. The TRA. 

MR. WHITFIELD. NTRA. 

MS. WILLIAMS. The TRA. 

MR. WHITFIELD. The TRA. 

MS. WILLIAMS. I think that agreement has lapsed. I’m not sure on 

that. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. But you all don’t make that payment and do 

not feel that you’re legally obligated to make the payment? 
42

MS. WILLIAMS. We have never been a member of TRA, not that I’m 

aware of. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Well, I would ask you to provide the 

committee with the dollar amount paid to the horsemen’s group and the 

number of accidents on the track from the year 2000 through 2005, and 

the number of horses euthanized on the track. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Okay. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Michigan Mr. Stupak. 

MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Williams, how long have you been an employee of MTR? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Twenty-two years. I’m sorry, it’s been longer than 

that. It’s been about 27. 

MR. STUPAK. And how long have you been Director of Racing at 

Mountaineer? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Since 1997. 

MR. STUPAK. So when the previous panel testified that 31 percent of 

all accidents occurred in 2000--31 percent of all accidents of jockeys in 

2000 occurred at Mountaineer, you dispute that? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t know that for sure. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. You will check that and get it back to us? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I will. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. You have a packet of documents there, the 

book there. Let me have you go to some selected pages from the 

transcript of the hearing held on November 17. This would be Exhibit 

Number 1. There should be two pages there, page 71 and page 90. Do 

you have them? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I do. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Will you read the excerpts on those pages out 

loud, please? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Mr. Stupak: “Okay. Did Mountaineer turn down 

the insurance policy from AIG was my understanding from the testimony 

earlier? 

Ms. Williams: “No, sir.” 

Mr. Stupak: “Was $100,000 being too expensive?” 

Ms. Williams: “No, sir. We have $100,000.” 

Mr. Stupak: “Okay. Did you turn down the offer--the offer was to 

go to $1 million, and you guys turned that down.” 

Ms. Williams: “We actually went back to our broker and asked for 

them to look at it, and they would not quote us a price on that.” 

MR. STUPAK. “Was that AIG? 

“No, it wasn’t.” 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. And then page 90, if you would, please. 
43

MS. WILLIAMS. Mr. Stupak: “Okay, Ms. Williams. Just two more 

questions, ma’am. Do you think Mountaineer should have a 

million-dollar policy for jockeys? Do you think they should?” 

Ms. Williams: “As I said before in my testimony, I said we went to 

the broker and asked them about the million dollars, and they wouldn’t 

quote us on that.” 

“Why wouldn’t they quote you on that?” 

Ms. Williams: “I can’t answer that. I don’t know.” 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Do you have any reason to believe that these 

are not accurate transcripts of the hearing we had on November 17 

reflecting your answers? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No. I believe they’re accurate. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Turn to the document marked as Exhibit 

Number 5, if you would. And it’s a fax memorandum dated February 16, 

2005, from John Eunick of Johnson and Anton insurance brokerage firms 

to Sandra L. Brokaw, legal assistant for Mountaineer, with a carbon copy 

to you as Director of Racing at Mountaineer Park, is it? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, it is. 

MR. STUPAK. Could you please read that e-mail? 

MS. WILLIAMS. “With regard to your memorandum as to the 

jockeys accidental insurance coverage, please find attached copy of the 

loss runs at Mountaineer Park, Inc. Kindly provide a quote from 

Mountaineer Park, Inc., at your earliest convenience, and return the same 

to me via fax at (304) 387-8306 or by mail: Legal Department, 

Mountaineer Park, Inc., P.O. Box 358, Chester, West Virginia 26034.” 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Now, please find the fax cover sheet that’s in 

Exhibit Number 6, dated 2 days later, February 18, 2005; and it’s to you, 

Rose Mary Williams, slash, Sandra Brokaw. And the memo reads, “I 

usually work with e-mails. Sorry for the handwriting. It closes your 

proposal. Call me at my cell anytime to discuss. It will be the entire 

weekend.” Is that how that reads? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, it does. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. And after that, there’s a document still in 6, 

because this was attached to the fax sheet, titled, A Proposal of On-Track 

Accident Insurance for Mountaineer Park, Inc., dated February 18, 2005, 

attached to the fax; is that correct? 

MS. WILLIAMS. That’s correct. 

MR. STUPAK. And before testifying today, I take it you’ve seen that 

2000--excuse me--February 18, 2005, proposal? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I actually saw this when the legal department 

brought it over when they prepared the statement that was sent in to you 

just recently. 
44

MR. STUPAK. So is it your testimony you did not see it before 

testifying in November? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I didn’t recall seeing this. It went to the legal 

department. I believe there was conversation about it. 

MR. STUPAK. Why would it go to the legal department if it’s 

addressed to you? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Because that’s where it was faxed to, and Sandra 

Brokaw is in the legal department. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Do you work in the legal department? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, I do not. 

MR. STUPAK. (304) 387-8306, whose fax is that? 

MS. WILLIAMS. The legal department. 

MR. STUPAK. And that fax machine is located in the legal 

department? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I believe it is. 

MR. STUPAK. So Ms. Brokaw then, since she’s a legal assistant, 

would she have brought that proposal to you? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t know that for sure. 

MR. STUPAK. Would Ms. Brokaw know that you had inquired about 

this proposal? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t believe it was me that inquired about it. I 

believe it was Helen Brancazio from the legal department. I gave her 

John Eunick’s name after we met at a conference. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. So who did you tell then to contact Mr. Eunick 

if you gave him the name? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Helen Brancazio. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. So you told that to Helen. Does Sandra work 

for Helen? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, she does. 

MR. STUPAK. Is Sandra Brokaw still working for Mountaineer Park? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, she is. 

MR. STUPAK. And is her job position still legal assistant? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, it is. 

MR. STUPAK. So if Sandra received this, then she would have 

brought it to Helen; is that your position? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It would have gone to Helen first, yes. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. So after questioning you on November 17, 

2005, did you ever go back and inquire from Sandra or Helen whether a 

proposal ever came from AIG? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I did on May the 2nd, I believe it was. 

MR. STUPAK. So like 1 week ago? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I’m not sure exactly when it was. It was when we 

sent in additional information. 
45

MR. STUPAK. So did you receive the questions Mr. Whitfield and 

myself wrote to you on your testimony? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

MR. STUPAK. Those questions, then, make you interested in why 

we’d ask about AIG? 

MS. WILLIAMS. And I believe that’s the time I went back to her. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. When did you receive those questions from us; 

do you know? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t know offhand. 

MR. STUPAK. Do you have it in front of you there? You or your 

attorney have those questions? 

MS. WILLIAMS. They’re here, but there’s no date on it. 

MR. STUPAK. Well, it appears that your response to questions posed 

by me arrived on--I sent them to you in November--looks like we 

received them on or about December 20. So to answer these questions 

from us, you never asked about AIG, you never saw this proposal, your 

first testimony the first time you saw it was May 2, like recently? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I’m sorry. I misspoke on that. I was looking at this 

memo that I have, and it’s dated that day. The first time we talked about 

AIG was when-- 

MR. STUPAK. Was that the hearing November 17 I asked you 

specifically about AIG? 

MS. WILLIAMS. You asked me specifically about the broker that we 

were with. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Go ahead. 

MS. WILLIAMS. And then -- 

MR. STUPAK. Let’s go back to page 71, the testimony you read. I 

asked you about specifically about AIG, page 71. I think that was 

Exhibit 1. Remember you read it for us? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did. 

MR. STUPAK. Didn’t Mountaineer turn down the insurance policy 

from AIG--that was my understanding from testimony earlier--and you 

said no. So how did you know then on November 17--you didn’t turn 

down the proposal from AIG, but yet you are telling us you didn’t know 

the proposal existed until May 2? 

MS. WILLIAMS. When you were talking, I thought you were 

referring to AIG as the insurance that was covering everybody. Our 

insurance was with Mather & Co. The $100,000 was with Mather & 

Co., a different broker. 

MR. STUPAK. But you knew who I meant when I mentioned AIG 

because, according to your testimony here today, you actually gave 

Mr. Eunick’s name, who works for AIG, right-- 

MS. WILLIAMS. That’s correct. 
46

MR. STUPAK. --to your staff. 

MS. WILLIAMS. I gave it to the legal department. 

MR. STUPAK. And that was before November 17, 2005? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I believe it was. 

MR. STUPAK. Because they solicited a proposal in February of 2005, 

some 9 months earlier. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Like I said, I met him at a conference. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. So your testimony here today is this proposal 

from AIG you never saw until May of 2006? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No. I saw this when Helen prepared the answers to 

send back on the timeline on insurances. 

MR. STUPAK. So would that have been on the 16th? Because that’s 

when they sent those questions, request for a proposal of increased track 

coverage. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. It’s whenever they responded to those 

questions. 

MR. STUPAK. And then Mr. Eunick here responded, according to 

documents before us here, 2 days later, right? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I saw the AIG proposal when Helen Brancazio 

submitted the information to this committee. 

MR. STUPAK. When they submitted to this committee. 

Okay. Let’s go back to Exhibit Number 5, February 16, 2005, from 

the Mountaineer Race Track. This is John Eunick. Okay. It’s from 

Sandra Brokaw. Did you ever see this? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Not that I’m aware of. Not that I can remember. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Lost run history. Where would Sandra 

Brokaw get that? 

MS. WILLIAMS. From Mather & Co. 

MR. STUPAK. Mather & Co., that’s your insurance company, right? 

MS. WILLIAMS. That’s our broker. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. That’s your broker. All right. 

So for over a year, probably about 15 months, there’s a proposal, and 

you don’t know anything about it, even though you’re copied that we’re 

submitting a proposal for AIG in February 16, 2005? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Like I said again, I’m not sure that I saw this 

proposal. If I did, I don’t remember it. And it wasn’t for over a year. 

We started negotiating again with AIG at the end of the year. 

MR. STUPAK. The end of what, 2005? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

MR. STUPAK. Well, when would your policy with Mather have 

expired? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It would have expired at the beginning or the end of 

2004. 
47

MR. STUPAK. 2004? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

MR. STUPAK. When did Gary Birzer get hurt? 

MS. WILLIAMS. He got hurt in July of 2004. 

MR. STUPAK. And there was no policy in effect then? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. There was. 

MR. STUPAK. There was? Was that with Mather? 

MS. WILLIAMS. That was with Mather. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. And Gary got hurt in June; is that correct? 

MS. WILLIAMS. That’s correct. July. 

MR. STUPAK. Hurt in July 2004, and Mather’s insurance ran until 

when? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I’m not sure on that. I would expect it would have 

expired at the end of 2004, the beginning of 2005. Director of Racing, 

isn’t part of your responsibility to see that the insurance is there? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No. That is handled through our legal department. 

MR. STUPAK. So what would you have to do with insurance then? 

MS. WILLIAMS. What do--I’m not sure what you’re asking. 

MR. STUPAK. You’re the Director of Racing, right? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I am. 

MR. STUPAK. You oversee it, the racing activities, correct? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I oversee the racing activities, yes. 

MR. STUPAK. And that would include providing benefits for the 

riders? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, sir. It does not. 

MR. STUPAK. It does not? Do you have a job description? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I do. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Can you provide that to the committee? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I can. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. If you have nothing to do with insurance, why 

would you be carbon copied on February 16, 2005? Why would 

Mr. Eunick, who you’ve met at a conference, make the fax cover directly 

to you with a slash to Sandra Brokaw? Why would these other people 

assume you had something to do with insurance, including your own 

legal assistant Sandra Brokaw? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t think Sandra did. I think Mr. Eunick did-- 

MR. STUPAK. We know February 16, 2005, from John Eunick to 

Sandra, and she carbon copies you. Why would she think you needed to 

see this if you had nothing to do with it? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It sounds like it’s in regard to a memo that was sent 

from Keith Camberland on the jockey accidental insurance coverage to 

me. 

MR. STUPAK. Exhibit Number 5, you’re saying it’s from who? 
48

MS. WILLIAMS. It says, “with regard to your memorandum to Keith 

Camberland on the jockey accidental insurance coverage, please find the 

attached copy of the loss run Mountaineer Park, Inc.” 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Carbon copied to who? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It’s carbon copied to me. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Why would you receive it if you have nothing 

to do with insurance? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I imagine because Sandra thought that it was 

because of the loss run. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. 

MS. WILLIAMS. They do copy me in on the policies and things like 

that after they’re-- 

MR. STUPAK. Right. So you’ve said. How about a Tamara Cronin, 

C-R-O-N-I-N. Cronin, am I saying that right? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, you are. 

MR. STUPAK. Who is she? 

MS. WILLIAMS. She is our PR director. 

MR. STUPAK. Let me show you, if I may--do we have another copy? 

If not, we’ll have this gentleman bring this down to you. Because you 

even talk about--let me read your quote. You’re quoted. Tamara’s head 

of Director of Public Relations, and you’re being quoted right here. 

“We recognize that jockeys are involved in a perilous sport, and that 

injuries are a possibility each time they ride.” In fact, the gentleman 

right there is giving it to you. Stated December 20. This is a news 

release from Mountaineer. 

“We recognize that jockeys are involved in a perilous sport, and that 

injuries are a possibility each time they ride,” said Rose Mary Williams, 

the Mountaineer Director of Racing. “We are concerned about the 

current lack of coverage provide by the Jockeys’ Guild and want to make 

every effort to ensure that the jockeys and their families have disability 

protection in the event of catastrophic injury.” 

So it sounds like you know a little bit more about insurance than 

what you’re telling this committee, or subcommittee. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Well, after Gary’s accident, who wouldn’t be 

concerned? I mean, we are concerned about-- 

MR. STUPAK. Exactly. 

MS. WILLIAMS. --catastrophic accidents. 

MR. STUPAK. And 7 months later a fax comes to you, addressed to 

you as a prime person with a 15 page proposal. And if you’re so 

concerned after Gary’s accident, you never paid any attention to it, 

you’re telling this committee? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I’m not saying that. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. What are you saying then? 
49

MS. WILLIAMS. I’m saying that I’m not sure that I saw this proposal. 

I know that when I talked to Helen, she said that she was working on that 

proposal; she was talking to John Eunick. John Eunick told her that there 

was an agreement being talked about with the NTRA over the insurance. 

MR. STUPAK. Right. But you’re concerned about your riders; 

therefore, you want to make sure they’re covered. How about before you 

came to testify on November 17, 2005. Did you talk to Sandra about 

insurance coverage for riders? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I’ve talked to Helen about it. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Not Sandra, just Helen? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

MR. STUPAK. You knew November 17 insurance would be 

something we would ask about? Did you not anticipate those questions 

from this subcommittee? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I did. 

MR. STUPAK. So you never made any inquiry to see if you had any 

insurance then on November 17? 

MS. WILLIAMS. The inquiries I made were about our current--at that 

time was our current coverage with the broker, Mather & Co., and the 

$100,000 and why they would not increase that coverage, because Helen 

had gone to them and asked them for an increase. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Does Helen report to you, or does she-- 

MS. WILLIAMS. No. She’s our in-house counsel. 

MR. STUPAK. Well, if you didn’t know about this proposal, why did 

you testify then when I asked you specifically about AIG, and I asked if 

it was too expensive, you said, “no, sir, we have 100,000.” And I said, 

“but did you--the offer was to go to a million, and you turned it down.” 

And you said, “we actually went back to our broker and asked for them 

to look at that, and they would not quote us on that.” And I said, “was 

that AIG”; and you said, “no, it wasn’t.” So who’s your broker then 

when you testified on November 17 then? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Mather & Co. 

MR. STUPAK. So did Mather provide insurance through 2005 for 

Mountaineer? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, they did. 

MR. STUPAK. In the form of $1 million? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, $100,000. 

MR. STUPAK. Just that $100,000. Okay. And Mather would not 

quote you on more than $100,000? 

MS. WILLIAMS. That’s my understanding. That’s what Helen 

Brancazio’s told me. 

MR. STUPAK. And you had no idea anyone’s inquired about any 

other insurance company, even when I asked you about AIG? 
50

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t know for certain that I have any knowledge 

of receiving that letter. I know that I went to AIG--John Eunick when 

we were at a conference, and we talked about insurance. I asked him to 

get ahold of us on providing coverage. 

MR. STUPAK. And that was in February, obviously, when you 

contacted on both coverage, someone did, on behalf of Mountaineer? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t know the exact date. All I know, I was at a 

conference when we spoke. 

MR. STUPAK. Sure. Well, then, why were you so sure then on page 

71 when I asked if it was AIG, and you said, no, it wasn’t? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Because our broker is Mather & Co. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Okay. All right. So who is the individual or 

entity at Mountaineer that makes decisions on insurance? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Helen Brancazio. 

MR. STUPAK. And you said you’re not her supervisor, or she doesn’t 

report to you? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, sir. She does not. 

MR. STUPAK. Would she consult with you on insurance issues? 

MS. WILLIAMS. We may have talked on occasion. 

MR. STUPAK. Well, how about after Gary Birzer’s accident, did you 

talk to her then? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. We talked about the coverage that was 

available to Mr. Birzer. 

MR. STUPAK. So it’s your testimony here today, the only insurance 

you knew you had on November 17 was $100,000, and that was from 

Mather? 

MS. WILLIAMS. The only insurance coverage that Mountaineer had 

on jockeys on November 17 was from Mather & Co. 

MR. STUPAK. And you had no knowledge of any quotes or requests 

from any insurance other than Mather about any coverage for $1 million 

or more? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Not that I can remember. 

MR. STUPAK. So you may have, but you just can’t remember it 

today? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t remember that. 

MR. STUPAK. Would you have taken notes while you were 

discussing these matters with Helen or Sandra? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Not necessarily. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Ms. Williams, if the jockeys or representative from 

the jockeys came to you with an issue relating to safety on the track, 

what would be the general procedure that you as Director of Racing 

would take at that point? 
51

MS. WILLIAMS. We have a committee formed that meets every--I 

believe they switched it to Saturdays now. They meet in the jockeys’ 

room. It’s the track superintendent, the HBPA president, and it’s two of 

the representatives from the jockeys’ colony. And they meet, and there’s 

documentation of those meetings. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And you would discuss at that time any issue that 

the jockeys may have raised regarding a safety issue? 

MS. WILLIAMS. That’s correct. They meet, and they discuss that. 

And then if there’s any problems, or if they want the track watered more, 

they relay that to the track superintendent, and it’s followed through. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And do you attend those meetings? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, I do not. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And do you get a report of those minutes? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I get a copy of the minutes. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Do you normally read them? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, I do. 

MR. WHITFIELD. What are some of the issues that have been raised, 

say, in the last 5 or 6 months. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Some of them have been the water issue, jockeys 

wanting more water when horsemen don’t. There’s been an issue, they 

feel there’s an uneven spot in the track. They bring that to our attention. 

A lot of the times we--some of the jockey colony doesn’t even show up 

for the meeting, or the HBPA representative doesn’t show up for the 

meeting, and that’s documented, too. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. What about security at the track from the 

perspective of--I’m assuming that in West Virginia certain drugs are 

allowed to be administered to horses at particular times, and others are 

disallowed. 

What steps does the track take to ensure that those State regulations 

are adhered to? 

MS. WILLIAMS. We don’t. That falls under the West Virginia 

Racing Commission, and they have an inspector on site. They have three 

stewards and a State veterinarian. 

MR. WHITFIELD. So the racetrack does not have any legal obligation 

to do anything to make sure that drugs administered to horses comply 

with State law? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No. That falls under the Racing Commission’s 

umbrella. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Now, I just want to ask you once again, you 

will provide us with a list, a number of all accidents, the year 2001 

through 2005? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. 
52

MR. WHITFIELD. 2000, 2005. And we want to know the amount of 

the annual payment to the HBPA, pursuant to the simulcasting 

agreement, over the last 3 years. 

MS. WILLIAMS. And do you just want that for export or export and 

import both? 

MR. WHITFIELD. I want them both. I want the total paid, export and 

import. 

MS. WILLIAMS. And live? 

MR. WHITFIELD. And live. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Okay. 

MR. WHITFIELD. And broken down. 

MS. WILLIAMS. We can do that. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Right. And then one other question. Mr. Stupak 

was asking about how Helen--and I forgot how you pronounce her last 

name. 

MS. WILLIAMS. Brancazio. 

MR. WHITFIELD. What is her title? 

MS. WILLIAMS. She’s in-house legal counsel for Mountaineer. 

MR. WHITFIELD. She is the in-house-- 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. 

MR. WHITFIELD. After Gary Birzer’s accident, I’m assuming that 

someone with authority at the track met and decided to raise the policy 

from $100,00 to a million? Didn’t a million-dollar policy go into effect 

in December of 2005? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. And what is the annual premium on that? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It’s over a half million dollars. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Half million. Okay. But you have more races than 

any other track in the country? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, we do. I would say more than most tracks. I 

don’t know that there’s anybody else that has more. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Okay. All right. 

Do you have any anything else? Okay. 

MR. STUPAK. Ms. Williams, were you aware that the Jockeys’ Guild 

had no such supplemental insurance policy in place at the time Gary 

Birzer was injured? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I don’t think any of us were aware. 

MR. STUPAK. I’m asking you though. You were? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, I wasn’t. 

MR. STUPAK. Your answer is no then? Okay. 

Is it true that Mountaineer never paid any money from 

Mountaineer’s revenues to the Guild as other tracks had for insurance 

policies? 
53

MS. WILLIAMS. I’m not sure. 

MR. STUPAK. Mountaineer never paid anything to the Guild, 

Jockeys’ Guild? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Not for insurance--I don’t think anybody pays 

anything for insurance policies. 

MR. STUPAK. Or how about media rents? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, sir. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. Has Mountaineer contributed any money to 

Gary Birzer as a result of his 2004 accident? 

MS. WILLIAMS. We provided the $100,000 in insurance, and we’ve 

done some fundraisers with jockeys and horsemen, and then we also built 

ramps at his house in West Virginia. 

MR. STUPAK. Do you know what the total value of those payments 

or services has been to Gary Birzer? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No, because I didn’t see all the amounts going in. 

Like I said, we helped with some of the jockeys, raised some of the 

money, and the HBPA provided giveaway things and stuff like that. 

MR. STUPAK. Who would be your immediate supervisor or boss? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Ted Arneault. Edson Arneault. 

MR. STUPAK. That’s the Chairman of the Board? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

MR. STUPAK. Did you ever discuss the AIG proposal with him? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It was in, I believe, November of 2005 or early 

December. Right before we did sign up for the million-dollar coverage. 

MR. STUPAK. Why would you be discussing it with him if you 

didn’t have anything to do with insurance? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It was brought to me through Helen, and I went to 

Ted with it. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. So if that was November of 2005 or early 

December, when did Helen come to you with this AIG proposal? 

MS. WILLIAMS. It was around the same time. 

MR. STUPAK. Before or after our hearing? 

MS. WILLIAMS. After. 

MR. STUPAK. Could you provide us the date of that meeting? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Sure. 

MR. STUPAK. Do you have a schedule you keep every day? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. A lot of the appointments. 

MR. STUPAK. How about with Helen? 

MS. WILLIAMS. No. 

MR. STUPAK. You’re a pretty small operation. 

MS. WILLIAMS. We’re all in the same area. 

MR. STUPAK. Right. How many fax machines do you have there? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I can’t tell you offhand. There’s quite a few. 
54

MR. STUPAK. You have a small area but quite a few fax machines? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. Every office has a fax machine. 

MR. STUPAK. What is your fax number? 

MS. WILLIAMS. 304-387-8303. 

MR. STUPAK. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

MR. WHITFIELD. I just have a few more questions. Then we will 

conclude for the day. 

I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing on this 

Interstate Horse Racing Act. Under the Interstate Horse Racing Act as a 

condition precedent to an agreement being finalized for simulcasting the 

horsemen’s group, you would have to reach an agreement with the 

horsemen’s group on that contract. 

As you know, we are considering some legislation, and we are 

looking at the Interstate Horse Racing Act. How often do you actually 

pay the HBPA pursuant to the fee that they have for approving the 

contract? Are they paid monthly or yearly? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Weekly. 

MR. WHITFIELD. They are paid weekly. 

MS. WILLIAMS. The money actually goes into the purse account. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Into the purse account. Then they withdraw it 

from the purse account? 

MS. WILLIAMS. I think they get 2 percent; 1.5 percent goes to their 

trust, and I believe some administration costs, and then the half percent 

stays with the HBPA. But they do have a trust fund for horsemen on the 

back side. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Now, in Kentucky, that money for the horsemen 

on the back side comes through in-cash tickets. What happens to in-cash 

tickets in West Virginia? 

MS. WILLIAMS. They actually go to the Racing Commission, and 

they’re used for capital improvements at each facility. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. When you provide us that information on 

the amount of money that actually goes to the HBPA outside of the 

purses, their fee as a condition precedent, would you also just give us a 

detailed paragraph of exactly the way it works and how the amount that 

you pay to them weekly is calculated? 

MS. WILLIAMS. Yes. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Okay. Okay. With that, thank you, Ms. Williams 

for your testimony. And with that, the hearing is concluded. The record 

will stay open for 30 days, and the documents, without objection, will be 

entered into the record. The record will stay open for any follow-up 

questions, and we would, if we have those, we’ll be getting those to you 

as well. 
55

[The information follows;] 
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88

MS. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

○