U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–128 WASHINGTON : 2019

H.R. 2651, THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY ACT 

OF 2017 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND 

CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 22, 2018 

Serial No. 115–143 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virgina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Ohio, opening statement ................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Tony Ca ́ rdenas, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 17 

WITNESSES

Andy Barr, A Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Kentucky ...................................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Paul Tonko, A Representative in Congress from the State of New York ........... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Alan M. Foreman, Chairman and CEO, Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc. ................................................................................................................ 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ................................................................... 91 

Stuart S. Janney, III, Chairman, The Jockey Club .............................................. 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Answers to submitted questions 2 ................................................................... 93 

Eric Hamelback, CEO, National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association .................................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 96 

Kitty Block, Acting President and CEO, Humane Society of the United States 42 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Ed Martin, President, Association of Racing Commissioners International ....... 53 

Prepared statement 3 ........................................................................................ 55 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 99 

Craig Fravel, CEO, The Breeders’ Cup .................................................................. 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Answers to submitted questions 4 ................................................................... 107 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Documents submitted by Mr. Kinzinger ................................................................ 85 

Statement of ASPCA, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky .......................................... 90 

Documents submitted by Mr. Latta 5

1 The committee did not receive a response to Mr. Foreman’s submitted 

questions for the record by the time of printing. 2 The committee did not receive a response to Mr. Janney’s submitted questions for the record by the time of printing. 3 The attachments to Mr. Martin’s statement can be found at: https:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20180622/108463/HHRG-115-IF17- 

Wstate-MartinE-20180622.pdf. 4 The committee did not receive a response to Mr. Fravel’s submitted questions for the record by the time of printing. 5 The documents can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/ 

20180622/108463/HHRG-115-IF17-20180622-SD003.pdf. 

(1) 

H.R. 2651, THE HORSERACING INTEGRITY ACT 

OF 2017 

FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER

PROTECTION, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:02 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Latta, Kinzinger, Burgess, Lance, Guthrie, Bilirakis, Bucshon, Mullin, Walters, Costello, Duncan, Walden 

(ex officio), Schakowsky, Ca ́ rdenas, Welch, Kennedy, Green, and 

Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff Present: Mike Bloomquist, Staff Director; Karen Christian, 

General Counsel; Melissa Froelich, Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, 

Oversight and Investigations/Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff Member, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; 

Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Greg Zerzan, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer 

Protection; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; 

Caroline Paris-Behr, Minority Policy Analyst; and Carolyn Hann, 

Minority FTC Detailee. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, good morning. I would like to call the subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection to order 

this morning. I welcome you all here this morning. 

And, at this time, the chair is going to recognize the gentleman 

from Oregon, the chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome our witnesses on this panel. And I will just 

stipulate at the beginning, I have to go manage the floor debate on 

H.R. 6, our big wrap-up bill on opioids. So my apologies at the head 

end, but that starts now as well. 

So I will keep my remarks fairly short. I will dispense with the 

discussion about the great thundering herds of Mustangs across 

the high desert of eastern Oregon. My district is enormous, and 

horses and horseracing and rodeo and ranching are all part of it. 

2 

But we really appreciate all of you being here today as we have 

this legislative hearing on H.R. 2651, the Horseracing Integrity Act 

of 2017. 

From the American West, the Kentucky Blue Grass, the renowned tracks in New York, and beyond, horses hold a very, very 

special place in our hearts and our history. Still today across the 

country, and especially in my district, horses are part of the fabric, 

they are part of our culture, they are part of our economy. 

My district is home to the world famous Pendleton Round-Up, 

one of the great rodeos of the West, and local races at places like 

Prineville and Frenchglen and everywhere else. As you all know 

and appreciate, horseracing in particular has a storied history in 

this country and remains an important economic driver. 

Our discussion of Mr. Barr and Mr. Tonko’s bill is also very timely. Earlier this month, the world witnessed history as Justify became the 13th horse to complete the Triple Crown. 

Today, we will hear from you, the experts, about the horseracing 

industry, how it is currently regulated, and what can be done to 

protect these wonderful, wonderful animals. We want to know your 

thoughts on the legislation at hand—we know you have different 

thoughts on it, depending upon your position on this issue—its impact on the industry, and how best to promote the vitality and integrity of this celebrated sport. 

You all have insights that will help inform us as to how we can 

address some of the concerns that currently exist in the industry. 

So I thank you all for being here today for this important, important discussion, and I am looking forward to your perspectives on 

this bill and this sport. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time, and, as we like to say in eastern Oregon, ‘‘Let ’er buck.’’ 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN

Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today to 

participate in our legislative hearing on H.R. 2651, the Horseracing Integrity Act 

of 2017. 

From the American West, to the Kentucky bluegrass, to the renowned tracks in 

New York and beyond, horses hold a special place in our history. 

Still today, across the country, and especially in Oregon’s Second District, horses 

are part of the fabric of our culture and economy. My district is home to the world 

famous Pendleton Round-Up and local races at Prineville’s Crooked River Ranch 

Round-Up. 

As you all know and appreciate, horseracing, in particular, has a storied history 

in this country and remains an important economic driver. 

Our discussion of Mr. Barr and Mr. Tonko’s bill is also very timely. Earlier this 

month, the world witnessed history as Justify became the 13th horse to complete 

the Triple Crown. 

Today, we will hear from you, the experts, about the horseracing industry, how 

it is currently regulated, and what can be done to protect these wonderful animals. 

We want to know your thoughts on the legislation at hand, its impact on the industry, and how best to promote the vitality and integrity of this celebrated sport. 

You all have insights that will help inform us as to how we can address some 

of the concerns that currently exist in the industry. I thank you all for being here 

today for this important discussion and I am looking forward to your perspectives 

on this bill and this sport. 

I yield back the balance of my time, and as we like to say in eastern Oregon, let 

‘er buck! 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Mr. LATTA. OK. The gentleman yields back. Thank you very 

much. 

And, at this time, because they are delayed right now, the ranking member of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the 

full committee haven’t arrived, we will informally pass on their 

opening statements, but I will go right into my opening statement 

at this time. 

Again, I want to thank you all very much for appearing today before us to discuss Representative Barr’s and Representative 

Tonko’s legislation, H.R. 2651, the Horseracing Integrity Act of 

2017. 

This legislation will establish an independent, nonprofit authority, the Horseracing Anti-Doping and Medication Control Authority. This authority would be tasked with developing and administering an anti-doping and medication control program for 

horseraces and affiliated persons. 

The bill also aims to ban the use of medication 24 hours before 

a race, which advocates and opponents tell the committee would result in a ban on the use of LASIX, a widely used medication that 

is administered 4 hours prior to post time to treat exercise-induced 

pulmonary hemorrhaging. 

Horseracing has a long and distinguished history in the United 

States. Just a couple weeks ago, on June 9, millions of Americans 

watched as Justify, a Thoroughbred racehorse jockeyed by 52-yearold veteran Mike Smith, became the 13th winner of the Triple 

Crown. This was a historic accomplishment celebrated across the 

globe. 

It is also notable that horseracing is an international sport. Although the races of the Triple Crown are the world’s most prestigious, other annual events in the United Kingdom, France, Australia, the United Arab Emirates, and around the globe demonstrate the worldwide appeal of this ancient sport. 

Here in the United States, at least 32 States have horseracing 

tracks, stretching from California to Maine, including my home 

State of Ohio. These tracks provides the base of an industry that 

has a far-reaching and significant impact on the U.S. economy. 

Last year, approximately 51,000 horses competed in about 41,000 races, competing for a total purse of more than $1 billion. According to a recent study, the equine industry generates more than 

$120 billion in total economic impact and provides a total employment impact of almost 1.8 million jobs. In my home State of Ohio, 

horseracing generates $715 million in annual revenue and supports 

more than 16,000 jobs. 

Horseracing is an important part of the American fabric, both as 

a sport and as a source of entertainment. Ensuring the integrity 

of the sport is important to owners, competitors, and fans alike. I 

look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses today on this 

legislation. 

And, with that, I will yield back the balance of my time. And, at 

this time, I will recognize the gentleman from California for a 5- 

minute opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:] 

4 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA

Good morning and thank you to our distinguished panel for appearing before us 

today to discuss Representative Barr and Tonko’s legislation, H.R. 2651, the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017. 

This legislation establishes an independent non-profit authority, the Horseracing 

Anti-Doping and Medication Control Authority. This Authority would be tasked with 

developing and administering an anti-doping and medication control program for 

race horses and affiliated persons. The bill also aims to ban the use of medication 

24 hours before a race, which advocates and opponents tell the committee would result in a ban on the use of Lasix, a widely used medication that is administered 

4 hours prior to post time to treat exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging. 

Horseracing has a long and distinguished history in the United States. Just a couple of weeks ago, on June 9th, millions of Americans watched as Justify, a thoroughbred racehorse, jockeyed by 52-year-old veteran Mike Smith, became the 13th winner of the Triple Crown. This was a historic accomplishment, celebrated across the 

globe. 

It is also notable that horse racing is an international sport. Although the races 

of the Triple Crown are the world’s most prestigious, other annual events in the 

United Kingdom, France, Australia, the United Arab Emirates and around the globe 

demonstrate the world-wide appeal of this ancient sport. 

Here in the United States at least 32 states have horse racing tracks, stretching 

from California to Maine, including my home State of Ohio. These tracks provide 

the basis of an industry that has a far-reaching and significant impact on the U.S. 

economy. 

Last year, approximately 51,000 horses competed in about 41,000 races competing 

for a total purse of more than $1 billion. According to a recent study, the equine 

industry generates more than $120 billion in total economic impact and provides a 

total employment impact of almost 1.8 million jobs. In my home State of Ohio, horse 

racing generates $750 million in annual revenue and supports more than 16,000 

jobs. 

Horseracing is an important part of the American fabric, both as a sport and as 

a source of entertainment. Ensuring the integrity of the sport is important to owners, competitors and fans alike. I look forward to hearing the views of our witnesses 

today on the legislation. 

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TONY CA ́ RDENAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta, for having this hearing. And I would like to thank my colleagues for introducing this legislation. 

Good morning, everybody. I am glad to cosponsor this bipartisan 

legislation, and I applaud Representatives Barr and Tonko for its 

introduction. As a longtime advocate of ensuring welfare protections for animals, I am glad that we are having a hearing on the 

implications of drug use in the horseracing industry. 

While it is true that most states currently have regulations on 

drug use in horseracing, there is very little uniformity. This legislation is important because it would establish an independent authority to oversee the industry, which would include members of 

the United States Anti-Doping Agency, USADA, an organization 

that has been very effective at overseeing drug use in other sports. 

The main purpose of the regulatory authority is to implement a 

uniform anti-doping program and to create a national standard 

that ensures all states are following the same rules. 

Like humans, overmedication of horses can be extremely dangerous. According to data released by the American Jockey Club, 

about 493 Thoroughbred horses died in 2017. While there may be 

5 

several reasons for these equine deaths, it is hard to point to other 

factors when over 90 percent of Thoroughbreds in the United 

States receive some form of race-day medication. 

It is critical that we have an organization to provide oversight to 

this industry. We need to make sure that there is fairness in horseracing, but the main focus should always be on the welfare of the 

horses and the safety of the jockeys. 

I look forward to hearing from our colleagues, who are about to 

ensure that safety in this sport that many of us have enjoyed is 

now in a better place. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. 

The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

And, at this time, as I mentioned, we will informally pass on the 

ranking member’s statement. When he gets here, he can give his 

statement, but that will conclude the opening statements from our 

members. 

The chair reminds members that, pursuant to committee rules, 

all members’ opening statements will be made part of the record. 

At this time, I ask unanimous consent that Energy and Commerce members not on the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and 

Consumer Protection be permitted to participate in today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

And, pursuant to House rules, members that are not on the committee are able to attend the meeting but will not be able to ask 

questions. 

At this time, we want to thank our witnesses for being with us 

today. Greatly appreciate you coming before the subcommittee to 

testify. 

Our first panel will be recognized for opening statements, and 

then, without recessing, we will seat our second panel of witnesses, 

who will be recognized for their opening statements. And then 

members will have an opportunity to ask questions. 

Our first panel of witnesses are the original cosponsors of H.R. 

2651, Representative Andy Barr from the great State of Kentucky 

and Representative Paul Tonko from the great State of New York. 

I thank you both for being here. 

And, Mr. Barr, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your opening 

statement. Thank you. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. ANDY BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE COMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; HON. 

PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY BARR 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Chairman Latta. Thank you to Chairman 

Walden, as well, and to Mr. Ca ́ rdenas and the ranking member for 

holding this hearing on our legislation, H.R. 2651, the Horseracing 

Integrity Act. 

When I was first elected to Congress, I dedicated my service to 

promoting the signature industries of Kentucky, and nothing is 

more synonymous with our commonwealth than thoroughbred 

breeding and horseracing. 

6 

My district, in particular, holds the title ‘‘Horse Capital of the 

World.’’ Now, 11 of the 13 Triple Crown winners were foaled in the 

Sixth District, including the most recent champion, Justify. Lexington, Kentucky is surrounded by more than 400 world-class horse 

farms, including Ashford Stud, the home of the last Triple Crown 

winner, American Pharoah. And Keeneland racecourse hosts many 

notable races, including the Toyota Blue Grass Stakes and the 

2015 Breeders’ Cup. 

However, this sport is not only prominent in our district, but 

horseracing is truly a national sport. Therefore, advocating for this 

industry requires more than just celebrating a proud heritage. 

With the privilege of representing the Horse Capital of the World 

comes the responsibility of fighting for its future. And, as the chairman pointed out, this is not just a sport; this is an industry with 

enormous economic benefit and enormous impact in terms of job 

creation. 

That is why I, with my fellow co-chair of the Congressional Horse 

Caucus, Representative Paul Tonko, introduced the Horseracing Integrity Act to enact reforms that would ensure the industry continues to grow and prosper. 

Currently regulated by 38 separate jurisdictions, our signature 

racing industry labors under a patchwork of conflicting and inconsistent state-based rules governing prohibited substances, lab accreditation, testing, and penalties for violations. This lack of uniformity has impeded interstate commerce, compromised the international competitiveness of the industry, and undermined public 

confidence in the integrity of our sport. 

H.R. 2651 would remedy these problems by authorizing the creation of a nongovernmental anti-doping authority, the Horseracing 

Anti-Doping and Medication Control Authority, governed by representatives of all major constituencies of the industry and responsible for implementing a national, uniform medication program for 

the horseracing industry. 

Today, you will hear from many supporters of this bill, and you 

will hear from critics of this legislation on the panels to follow. The 

critics will say that this legislation will create a new duplicative 

regulatory bureaucracy at the Federal level and will duplicate what 

states are already doing. They will say it increases regulation. 

They will say it bans LASIX, which is currently legal to administer 

on race day in the United States. And they will say they have concerns with the ability of the United States Anti-Doping Agency to 

regulate this program. 

It is true that the industry has made notable strides in recent 

years to adopt uniform standards. The work of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium and the NTRA’s Safety & Integrity 

Alliance has been positive and should be commended. 

But, to date, only 11 of the 38 racing jurisdictions with laws permitting parimutuel horseracing have adopted all 4 elements of the 

National Uniform Medication Program. The remaining state racing 

jurisdictions operate under only rules applicable to that state and 

have great variances. Of the leading racing states, like New York, 

California, Florida, or Kentucky, none have fully implemented 

NUMP. 

7 

As a conservative who believes in federalism and states’ rights, 

I also understand that the Constitution gives Congress the power 

to regulate interstate commerce precisely for the purpose of eliminating these kinds of impediments to interstate exchange. 

A national, uniform medication program is not about creating 

more bureaucracy or more regulation. In fact, this legislation reduces regulations by replacing 38 state-by-state regulatory regimes 

with a single national, uniform set of standards. 

To address concerns with the dispersion of specific drugs, H.R. 

2651 does not ban the administration of LASIX for truly therapeutic purposes. Rather, it prohibits trainers from administering 

these drugs on race day. So it preserves out-of-competition therapeutic administration. 

This would bring U.S. regulation in line with other horseracing 

counterparts in places like Europe, Dubai, and Hong Kong, ultimately eliminating the perception of unfair competition and enhancing the reputation of U.S. racing on an international level, 

which is important for the international sales and exports of our 

breeding stock as well. 

Finally, USADA’s involvement through the HADA would bring 

the sport independence, expertise, and credibility. The HADA will 

be made up of USADA and industry officials, thus benefiting from 

the experience of officials and individuals tasked with addressing 

the challenges presented in horseracing today. 

And H.R. 2651 would address many of the issues confronting the 

industry, increase the popularity and public confidence and international competitiveness of the sport. 

In the wake of Justify’s historic Triple Crown, it is important we 

use this momentum to continue to fight for the future of this special industry. 

And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barr follows:] 

8 


35128.001
9 


35128.002
10 


35128.003
11 


35128.004
12 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Kentucky yields back, and the chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from New York for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair. 

And I do want to offer my thanks here publicly to Chairman 

Walden and Ranking Member Pallone for the opportunity for the 

hearing. And, likewise, thank you, Chair Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky and Ranking Member Ca ́ rdenas, today for the opportunity to testify before you on the importance of promoting uniformity and integrity in the horseracing industry. 

You might think a New York Democrat and a Kentucky Republican can’t agree on much, but we have developed a strong working 

relationship on this issue because we both love the sport of horseracing and want to see it thrive. 

I am pleased that we are holding this hearing today to learn 

about what we can do to improve this sport of kings and ensure 

the sport continues to thrive well into the future. We have a distinguished panel of witnesses from across the spectrum to share their 

thoughts with us on this important issue, and I look forward to 

hearing from them. 

As home to the Nation’s oldest track, the Saratoga Race Course, 

my home area has been long steeped in the storied tradition of 

horseracing, dating back to 1863. The equine industry is an important economic driver for the State of New York, with an estimated 

economic impact of some $5.3 billion annually. 

In 2015, I had the chance to see in person the sport at its very 

best when I bore witness to the historic run by American Pharoah 

at the Belmont track to capture the Triple Crown. 

When we place a majestic equine athlete like American Pharoah 

or our newest Triple Crown champion, Justify, front and center, 

this endeavor can capture truly the imagination of our nation, and 

the sport of the horseracing can continue to grow in our hearts. 

However, we have all seen the devastating results that can occur 

when these equine athletes are pushed beyond their limits, often 

aided by medications that can mask underlying health issues. This 

dangerous race-at-all-costs mentality denigrates the sport and 

should be unacceptable to anyone in the horseracing community. 

This same story has played out countless times across the country because the current voluntary national uniform medication reforms have been implemented unevenly, leaving patchwork systems in place that have created a wide disparity in the effectiveness of medication testing and enforcement. 

This piecemeal, voluntary approach is not only detrimental to the 

health of our beloved horses, it denigrates the perception of the 

sport and certainly puts other athletes, like our jockeys, at risk. 

Now, my colleague Andy Barr indicated some of the statistics on 

those voluntary medication efforts, so I won’t repeat them. But if 

horseracing is to thrive as an industry and once again capture the 

public’s imagination, we must and we can do better. 

On this point, the public strongly agrees. More than 90 percent 

of the public and 90 percent of horse players want to see stronger 

action on uniform medication reform. In a sport built on the integVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:52 Mar 07, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-143 CHRIS
13 

rity of competition, nothing is more important than a level playing 

field for the horses, the jockeys, and the trainers who compete, as 

well as the fans who wager on the races. 

While the voluntary approach is well-meaning, the lack of effective followthrough has negatively impacted the perception of fair 

competition across the sport and has done little to build confidence 

in the minds of our sports fans and our sports critics, many of 

whom are concerned about drug use and testing. 

By creating a strong, transparent, and independent—let me repeat that—independent anti-doping authority, we can guarantee 

fair play, improve the health of our horses, and bring new energy 

and spectators to this majestic sport. 

That is why I have joined with my friend Representative Barr in 

introducing the Horseracing Integrity Act. The legislation we have 

introduced would create a national, independent horseracing antidoping authority responsible for rulemaking, testing, and enforcement oversight regarding drugs and medication. 

This new organization would be chaired by representatives at the 

independent United States Anti-Doping Agency, or USADA, a nonprofit, nongovernmental institution. The board of the new organization would also include voices representing a spectrum of perspectives within the horseracing industry, including our owners, our 

breeders, our horsemen, our racetracks, and certainly our veterinarians. 

The new organization would be responsible for determining permitted and prohibited substances, a schedule of sanctions for violations, testing procedures, standards, protocols, laboratory accreditation procedures, and due-process procedures for violations. 

Many have questioned why horseracing should be partnering 

with USADA, an organization with no history in the sport. While 

the physiological makeup of horses and humans are different, the 

need and method for effective testing protocols, uniform standards 

and penalties, as well as proper lab accreditation is the same. This 

is where USADA’s real strength as an organization lies. 

The horseracing anti-doping authority approach would implement horseracing industry best practices for uniform testing, uniform penalties, well-designed out-of-competition testing, and fully 

accredited labs to deter cheaters and appropriately penalize violators. 

One of the major strengths of this legislation is that, from the 

outset, we engaged a broad coalition of stakeholders, both inside 

and outside the industry, interested in medication reform. That is 

why we were able to gain support from a diverse range of organizations, including animal welfare groups like the Human Society of 

the United States; horse groups like The Jockey Club, the Breeders’ Cup, the New York Racing Association, and the grassroots 

Water, Hay, Oats Alliance; in addition to some of the largest track 

owners in our country. Since the legislation was introduced, we 

have broadened this coalition even further and look to work with 

any stakeholder interested in uniformity and clean sporting. 

Again, I look forward to hearing from our diverse panel today 

about what they are seeing on the ground and how best we can 

move forward together to strengthen this sport of kings. 

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. 

14 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko follows:] 


35128.005
15 


35128.006
16 


35128.007
17 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman yields back. 

And I want to thank you both for your testimony before us today. 

And that will conclude our first panel of witnesses, and we will 

move on now to our second panel. 

So thank you very much, gentlemen, for your testimony. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much for appearing before the 

subcommittee. 

And as I mentioned a little bit earlier, we informally passed on 

the gentlelady from Illinois’ opening statement, so at this time she 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I thank the chairman for that 

courtesy and the indulgence of the panel. 

And thank you all for being here. 

The Horseracing Integrity Act introduced by Representatives 

Barr and Tonko is a critical piece of legislation. It is past time that 

we address the glaring issues within the horse industry. 

This is very personal for me. As a former owner of a horse, 

named B.J. Sullivan, I know how important these majestic animals 

are. I have fond memories of tending to and riding horses with my 

grandfather as a young girl. 

I have also been a longtime supporter of animal welfare protections. You should just know, of all the issues that are going on, animal rights of some sort, always in the top five of the communications that I get from my constituents, which I find really interesting, ranging from pollinators to dogs and cats and all other 

kinds of endangered species. 

I am happy that Representative Barr and Tonko have introduced 

this updated legislation, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. I was 

the lead cosponsor of similar legislation in 2013 with Representative Pitts that addressed some of the same concerns with doping 

and horseracing. The new Barr-Tonko bill incorporates many of 

those things. 

Specifically, the legislation was expanded to include 

Standardbred and Quarter Horses. All racehorses should be afforded the same protection under this legislation. 

Most notably, it places a ban on race-day medication, which I feel 

is the most important change to the legislation. Drugs such as 

LASIX are often misused in order to increase a horse’s performance 

during the race. Proponents of using LASIX will claim that it is 

similar to giving a horse a vaccination and is used to prevent bleeding. However, the reality is that the drug is masking an underlying 

health issue with the horse as well as the possible presence of illegal substances. 

The use of these drugs jeopardizes the long-term health and safety of the horse. More than 90 percent of the horses in the United 

States compete on LASIX. In most international racing, the drug 

18 

is banned on race day. The United States should learn from those 

other countries. We are literally running horses into the ground. 

Recent data by the American Jockey Club found that 493 Thoroughbred horses died in 2017. If human athletes were dying at this 

rate while racing, it would be clear that there was a problem that 

needed to be fixed. These glaring numbers harm the integrity of 

the industry. 

Horses in these sports deserve real protections. For too long, we 

have allowed the industry to self-regulate without any real 

progress in ensuring protection and stopping the bad actors. The 

Horseracing Integrity Act would address many of these issues 

plaguing the industry. It would allow an independent regulatory 

body to oversee the industry, create a national standard that ensures states are following the same rules, and implement a uniform 

anti-doping program that prohibits race-day drugs. 

The future of horseracing depends on this universal regulatory 

body. We must ensure that we are protecting horses and stopping 

the bad actors who are endangering the lives of these horses, jockeys, and the fate of the industry itself that so many people love. 

If we have banned doping in other sports, why not ban it in the 

horseracing industry? 

I look forward to hearing the testimony on how we can continue 

to protect equines and the integrity of the horseracing industry. 

And I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

The gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. 

And, again, I want to thank our witnesses for coming before us 

today to testify. 

Our second panel of witnesses will be able to present with a 5- 

minute opening statement followed by a round of questions from 

our members. 

Our second witness panel for today’s hearing will include Mr. 

Alan Foreman, the Chairman and CEO of the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Inc.; Mr. Stuart S. Janney, Chairman of The 

Jockey Club; Mr. Eric Hamelback, the CEO of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association; Ms. Kitty Block, Acting President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United 

States; Mr. Ed Martin, the President of the Association of Racing 

Commissioners International; and Mr. Craig Fravel, the CEO of 

the Breeders’ Cup. 

Again, we want to thank you all for being here today. 

And, Mr. Foreman, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your 

opening statement. Thank you very much. 

19 

STATEMENTS OF ALAN M. FOREMAN, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, 

THOROUGHBRED HORSEMEN’S ASSOCIATION, INC.; STUART 

S. JANNEY III, CHAIRMAN, THE JOCKEY CLUB; ERIC 

HAMELBACK, CEO, NATIONAL HORSEMEN’S BENEVOLENT 

AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION; KITTY BLOCK, ACTING 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED 

STATES; ED MARTIN, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF RACING 

COMMISSIONERS INTERNATIONAL; AND CRAIG FRAVEL, 

CEO, THE BREEDERS’ CUP 

STATEMENT OF ALAN M. FOREMAN 

Mr. FOREMAN. Thank you, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member 

Schakowsky. Good morning, members of the subcommittee. 

I am proud and honored to be invited to participate this morning 

to defend the honor and integrity of the racing industry and to oppose what is tantamount to a Federal takeover of a state-sanctioned, state-regulated industry where no basis to do so exists. 

H.R. 2651 is not in the best interests of the racing industry and 

is an ill-conceived effort by certain special interests to impose their 

minority and special-interest views on the regulation of our industry. We have deep reservations about the provisions contained in 

this legislation because of its potential adverse impact on the 

health, welfare, and safety of our horses and the economics of the 

industry. 

Although the proponents would have you believe that this bill is 

a simple effort at uniformity that enjoys broad-based industry support, nothing could be further from the truth. While certainly this 

legislation has been divisive, there is broad-based consensus, a remarkably broad consensus, comprising more than 55 industry organizations and stakeholder groups, covering all 3 racing breeds, the 

regulators, and the veterinary community, and that consensus is 

united in its opposition to H.R. 2651. 

H.R. 2651 purports to create a system for the uniform regulation 

and use of medication in the racing industry, but such a uniform 

system already exists, and it works well. Performance-enhancing 

drugs are not allowed in a horse on race day in horseracing, unlike 

in human professional and amateur sports competitions. There is 

total uniformity on this issue in every racing jurisdiction. And racing has uniform rules, policies, guidelines, and laboratory testing 

in all racing states that are superior to any sport or business in 

the world. And our system is totally transparent. 

We strongly support the existing mechanism by which medication policies are formulated. These scientifically based policies form 

the basis of the regulatory scheme currently in place, made after 

thoughtful deliberation and dialogue that includes input from an 

important array of organizations, including, most importantly, the 

Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, which serves as the industry’s scientific and policy arm. 

As a demonstration of the ongoing efforts to improve our current 

system, the racing industry is currently in the process of adopting 

major changes nationally in five areas identified as in need of improvement, including enhanced out-of-competition testing. 

H.R. 2651 seeks to replace our current state regulatory system 

with a new Federal bureaucracy on top of a state system that has 

20 

existed for over a century, with governance stripped from the states 

and given to a private group of handpicked, uninformed, and unqualified individuals who know little to nothing about the racing 

industry or the health and welfare of the horse, including USADA, 

which does not now nor has it ever had any involvement in the 

equine sport. 

It contains an unfunded mandate that gives unfettered taxing 

authority to this private, federally appointed group without any accountability to the states with the taxes to pay for their bureaucracy that will be ultimately assessed to horse owners. It will deprive horsemen of their current due-process protections under state 

law and throw them into the Federal judicial system. 

We believe that H.R. 2651, like its predecessor version that the 

Congressional Research Service previously deemed most likely as 

being unconstitutional, is unconstitutional for the same reasons 

and, more particularly, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murphy v. NCAA. I can assure you that H.R. 2651, if 

passed, will be challenged in court by states objecting to a Federal 

takeover of their state-sanctioned and state-regulated industries, 

and our industry will be consumed in costly and protracted litigation that can only harm its economic well-being. 

So the question, therefore, that has to be asked is: What is the 

crisis? What is the overriding Federal interest that requires the 

Federal Government to cast aside the states in a sweeping takeover 

of a state-sanctioned, state-regulated industry that does its jobs 

well? The answer is: There is none, because H.R. 2651 is not really 

about uniformity. 

Couched as an attempt at nationwide uniformity on the issue 

and regulation of medication in racing, which the industry already 

does quite well, this bill is actually nothing more than a smokescreen for the proponents’ true purpose, which they have unsuccessfully been trying to accomplish for the past 5 years: the elimination from racing of a safe, prophylactic, effective, necessary medication known as LASIX given on race day. 

H.R. 2651 enables an end-run around a 30-year industry scientifically based welfare policy that has been universally adopted by 

state regulators. To eliminate this medication would cause great 

economic consequences throughout every level of this industry and 

cause the greatest equine welfare crisis we have ever known. This 

is not hyperbole; this is fact. 

Finally, our mandate which drives everything we do in this industry is to protect the health and welfare of the horse, the integrity of our sport, the fairness of competition, and the best interest 

of the betting public. I can assure this committee that there is not 

a day in this industry when we are not laser-focused on these core 

principles. H.R. 2651 does not meet these standards. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Foreman follows:] 

21 


35128.008
22 


35128.009
23 


35128.010
24 


35128.011
25 


35128.012
26 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Janney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STUART S. JANNEY III 

Mr. JANNEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman 

Schakowsky, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to speak at today’s hearing on the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017. 

This issue is extremely important to the Thoroughbred industry 

and especially to The Jockey Club, which has been advocating for 

medication reform in our sport for decades. The Jockey Club is the 

breed registry for the Thoroughbreds in the United States and 

Canada. As the chairman of The Jockey Club, I would like to explain why this legislation is so important to us. 

If we reflect on racing’s history, we understand that until the 

1960s racing was local. I grew up in Maryland, and my parents 

were very successful in Maryland racing. On rare occasions, they 

ventured to New York with a good horse, but, essentially, they 

raced only in Maryland. Who bet on their horses? People in Maryland who went to the Maryland tracks. Thus, it made sense that 

their racing activities were regulated by the State of Maryland. 

And, by and large, it worked. 

Then, two things happened. First, people learned how well horses 

travel. They can step off a van in the morning, run well in the 

afternoon, and then travel home that night without a problem. Second, interstate simulcasting was introduced. In 1978, Congress 

passed the Interstate Horseracing Act, which enabled simulcasting 

and wagering across state lines. 

However, the state regulatory structure never changed. I want 

you to realize that our Triple Crown races are conducted under different sets of rules—what drugs can be administered, withdrawal 

times for those drugs, penalties, and security protocols. They are 

all different. Over the last couple of weeks alone, I have run horses 

in New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Kentucky. In total, I 

need licenses in nine states, every one with a different set of rules. 

These are the facts of thoroughbred racing today. Our sport is 

international. Our horses are sold to buyers around the world. Our 

stallions shuttle among continents, and bets cross state and national borders. And that is the fastest growing segment of our wagering. 

We are entering an age of sports betting when racing will hopefully share betting platforms with many other sports, none of which 

play by different rules on a state-by-state basis. 

Opponents of this bill will tell you instances of cheating are remote, drug positives declining, the states are well on their way to 

uniformity, that the rules we have are fine, that their horses need 

race-day medication even though the rest of the world prohibits it, 

that out-of-competition testing isn’t necessary. 

Well, let me tell you about Murray Rojas, a trainer in Pennsylvania who is charged with wire fraud, conspiracy, and misbranding 

of prescription drugs. A fellow trainer testified that private veterinarians told horsemen which drugs were being tested for at the 

state’s lab. Horsemen, of course, requested race-day treatments accordingly to avoid getting caught, based on that knowledge. That 

27 

was bad, but the performance of the racing commission was worse. 

They did nothing, and the FBI had to get involved. 

It is naive to suggest that these problems are not occurring in 

other states. Travis Tygart, CEO of the United States Anti-Doping 

Agency, will tell you that the most important part of USADA’s system is out-of-competition testing. When you don’t know when you 

are going to be tested, when you know your samples will be tested 

by an accredited lab and held for years, when you know you will 

be penalized, then you have a real deterrent against cheating. 

I am sure many of you wonder why any industry would ask Congress to engage in an area that has been the domain of state regulators. Well, despite decades of trying to achieve uniformity by selfregulation, we have failed. Also, Congress and this committee in 

particular helped save our industry by passing the aforementioned 

Interstate Horseracing Act, and we hope you can do so again. 

We strongly believe that our sport needs an independent organization to apply uniform rules, stringent out-of-competition testing, 

tough penalties, and effective enforcement procedures. These measures will ensure clean competition and improve safety for horses 

and humans alike. This is consistent with The Jockey Club’s core 

belief that horses should compete only when they are free from the 

influence of medication. 

We very much look forward to working with you. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Janney follows:] 

28 


35128.013
29 


35128.014
30 


35128.015
31 


35128.016
32 


35128.017
33 


35128.018
34 

Mr. LATTA. The subcommittee thanks you for your testimony this 

morning. 

And, Mr. Hamelback, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC HAMELBACK 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Schakowsky, and distinguished members. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. 

My name, again, is Eric Hamelback. I am the CEO for the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, located in 

Lexington, Kentucky. We are the largest organization representing 

close to 30,000 owners and trainers of Thoroughbred racehorses in 

the U.S. and Canada. 

I have been involved with horses my entire professional life. Before assuming my current position, I did everything from mucking 

stalls to managing one of the largest breeding operations in the 

world—a true horseman. 

I wish to state emphatically that the National HBPA and the 

vast majority of Thoroughbred organizations and two other organizations representing racing breeds, the U.S. Trotting Association 

and the American Quarter Horse Association, are all on the record 

in firmly opposing the enactment of H.R. 2651. 

The HBPA believes that owners and trainers who cheat by administering drugs with no legitimate therapeutic use in racehorses 

should be severely penalized. Doping is illegal, and it is immoral. 

Data maintained by the state racing authorities compiled by the 

Association of Racing Commissioners International shows conclusively that doping of racehorses in the U.S. is rare. In fact, the 

horseracing industry spends millions of dollars on comprehensive 

testing each year. 

In 2017, there were over 354,000 biological samples taken by regulators in the U.S. Only 169 of those tests were positive for drugs 

that had no business being in the horse. So, to put it plainly, 99.9 

percent of all tests were negative of any doping substance. That is 

a record that should be the envy of every sport that tests for illegal 

drugs. 

Another stat worth noting is that the states representing 95 percent of the dollars wagered in the U.S. are under the same controlled therapeutic medication list, and 100 percent are under the 

uniform prohibiting performance-enhancing medications. 

The HBPA, along with the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the North American Association of Racetrack Veterinarians, draw a very clear distinction between doping and lawful 

therapeutic medications, such as furosemide, commonly called 

LASIX. 

LASIX is effective in preventing and mitigating bleeding in the 

lungs, a condition that we call exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging. It is transparent to the public, and it has been safely 

used for over 40 years. The HBPA supports the use of LASIX and 

other therapeutic medications for the health and welfare of our 

horses. 

The American Veterinary Medical Association, representing more 

than 91,000 veterinarians who have no vested interest in horseVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:52 Mar 07, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-143 CHRIS
35 

racing, support the AAEP’s policy, which clearly states the use of 

LASIX on race day is the most efficacious way to control EIPH. 

These veterinary experts should not be ignored. 

And yet a minority of voices has called for the ban of LASIX on 

race day. Those who do so equate usage of LASIX to doping. That 

is false. The scientific, clinical evidence establishes the facts about 

LASIX, which include: Nearly all racehorses bleed to some varying 

degree, and they have a grade of EIPH. LASIX does not prevent 

post-race detection in other drugs. That is a myth. LASIX is not 

performance-enhancing. It does not make a horse run faster than 

its God-given ability to do so. And, finally, LASIX is a choice. You 

have the choice, as an owner or trainer, to use it. 

Some proclaim that the rest of the world does not use LASIX and 

neither should we. Well, that is misleading at best. LASIX is widely used in training in other countries. From a horse and welfare 

standpoint, that makes no sense to me. Rather, it should be used 

on race day, when the stress of competitive racing heightens and 

the risk of harm caused by the internal bleeding increases. 

So, in summary, there is no need for the Federal Government to 

reinvent the wheel by establishing a new regulatory structure 

where the state structure is already working well. And a new Federal structure would likely take years to gain the necessary knowledge and would cost millions of dollars. H.R. 2651 is not needed. 

The job we are doing is being done very well. 

Thank you, Chairman. And I appreciate the opportunity to be 

here, and I am happy to answer any questions as a horseman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamelback follows:] 

36 


35128.019
37 


35128.020
38 


35128.021
39 


35128.022
40 


35128.023
41 


35128.024
42 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

And, Ms. Block, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KITTY BLOCK 

Ms. BLOCK. Thank you. On behalf of the Humane Society of the 

United States and its affiliate, the Humane Society Legislative 

Fund, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 

2651. 

Thank you, Chairman Bob Latta and Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky, for holding this hearing and to Representatives Andy Barr 

and Paul Tonko for introducing this important legislation. 

First, I want to make clear our position on horseracing and our 

interest in this legislation. We are not opposing horseracing. Our 

interest is improving the welfare and treatment of all animals, including racehorses. 

In 2016, we formed a National Horse Racing Advisory Council. 

Our goal was to facilitate the exchange of information between people who have spent a lifetime in this industry and those of us who 

care about equine welfare. This impressive council includes industry experts from The Jockey Club, racehorse breeders, former state 

racing commission officials, and two hall-of-fame jockeys and is 

chaired by the former owner of Pimlico. 

We believe that everyone who makes a living from this industry 

has an obligation to protect and enhance the welfare of horses, who 

are at the heart and soul of this business. 

Throughout history, horses have played a key role in the development of our society. They are majestic creatures who have served 

us in so many ways, from plowing our fields to fighting in our 

wars. And, today, we partner with these equine athletes in numerous competitions, races, and recreational riding. Horses have often 

served as a symbol of the American spirit. We have a duty to care 

for them humanely and to not put them in harm’s way and to provide a safe and comfortable life for them once their racing career 

has ended. 

It is a glaring oversight, therefore, that there is no national regulatory body for horseracing. And this creates a disparity of racing 

regulations and uneven enforcement in the U.S. I also serve as the 

Humane Society International president, which is the HSUS’s global arm, so I am keenly aware that the U.S. is lagging behind other 

nations with racehorsing traditions. In particular, we have offices 

in the U.K. and Australia, where the horseracing industry is successful without the use of race-day medications. 

The ethical issues in horseracing are closely related to concerns 

raised about doping in a variety of Olympic competitions and professional sports. These industries all have policies against certain 

types of drug use, and high-profile incidents have left the public 

concerned about the extent of the problem in these sports. 

The racing industry continues to lag behind because too many 

stakeholders want to maintain the status quo. And the use of illegal substances is not the only problem. Legal therapeutic drugs are 

also problematic, as they can allow a horse to push through pain, 

intensifying injury, which can lead to breakdowns, career-ending 

injuries, and death for both horse and jockey. 

43 

This industry has had decades to clean up its act, but it has been 

unable to do so. This is neither an impulsive government intervention nor an unnecessary one. It comes after the death of thousands 

of horses, declining fan interest, and a general crisis of confidence 

in the sport. It is a national industry, and it demands consistent 

standards rather than the current patchwork of state racing regulations. 

Additionally, as this subcommittee knows well, Congress has for 

the past decade wrestled with the problem of healthy American 

horses being funneled into the slaughter pipeline, including horses 

coming from the racetrack. Racehorses with drug-related injuries 

are often sent to slaughter once the horses are no longer able to 

run. 

Horses can live well into their 20s and 30s, and their racing careers generally span only the first 5 years of life. Horses who are 

healthy when they retire from racing are in a far better position 

to transition to second careers and less likely to be sold to killer 

buyers. If you agree with the 80 percent of Americans who oppose 

the slaughter of horses for human consumption, this bill will reduce the number of broken-down racehorses killed for their meat. 

As an animal protection organization, we have seen repeatedly 

that any industry taking shortcuts on animal welfare will see a loss 

of public support. Undeniably, for a variety of reasons, the horseracing industry is in decline. It is critical that this industry strive 

to meet the highest standards of animal care. We shouldn’t put 

horses’ lives at risk, as there is an alternate path. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Block follows:] 

44 


35128.025
45 


35128.026
46 


35128.027
47 


35128.028
48 


35128.029
49 


35128.030
50 


35128.031
51 


35128.032
52 


35128.033
53 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

And, Mr. Martin, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ED MARTIN 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much 

appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

And I was instructed firmly by the chairman of the Ohio State 

Racing Commission to stand up for the Standardbreds in Ohio that 

race in your state as well as all the horses who race in everybody 

else’s states. 

I am here to explain what is done to police the sport of horseracing by the states, put it in perspective with other sports, address misconceptions some people have, and identify where we believe the real need is to protect the welfare of the horse. 

There have been a lot of things said so far, and I would urge— 

I can’t squeeze them all into 5 minutes, but I have a rather lengthy 

written testimony that addresses almost everything that has already been said. 

The ARCI sets standards for thoroughbred, standardbred, and 

quarter horse racing. We represent the state regulators in the U.S., 

the Federal and provincial regulators in Canada, as well as the national regulator in several other jurisdictions. Our model rules and 

drug classification systems are respected worldwide, and some jurisdictions have adopted portions of the model rules by reference. 

First, let me say that the state racing regulators are totally uniform in prohibiting the presence of performance-enhancing drugs in 

a horse when it races. 

Secondly, there is total uniformity in the adoption of a 30-year 

equine welfare policy to permit a voluntary race-day equine welfare 

treatment known as LASIX. 

Third, with the exception of two states, the drug testing labs are 

internationally accredited. There is also total uniformity in the use 

of progressive penalties and substantial uniformity in adoption of 

testing thresholds for 30 appropriate medications deemed normal 

and appropriate for equine care. 

State racing commissions do more testing in racing than any 

other professional sport. Last year, 354,000-plus biological samples 

were sent to the labs. By comparison, all of the World Anti-Doping 

Agency labs tested 300,000 samples and the U.S. Anti-Doping 

Agency tested 13,000 samples. 

And to compare the programs, you have to look at the results. 

The clear rate in U.S. racing commission testing, USADA testing, 

and WADA testing is comparable. When you look at the substances 

being detected by the WADA labs, which are readily available on 

the internet, you will see that they are not catching anything that 

the state racing commissions don’t catch or have the ability to 

catch. 

Does that mean we don’t have a challenge? No. We do have a 

challenge. We have the same challenge that every other sport has: 

use of substances that are undetectable or unknown. But based 

upon the numbers, which are factual and maybe inconvenient for 

those advocating this bill, horseracing does as good a job or as bad 

a job as the Olympics or any other sport. 

54 

It is a little-known fact that the standards in horseracing are 

stricter than they are under the World Anti-Doping Agency because 

we do not permit athletes to obtain permission to use performanceenhancing drugs in competition, as is allowed under the therapeutic-use exemption provisions of the WADA code. 

According to the 2016 USADA annual report online, they approve 

about 81 percent of their use exemption requests. And athletes are 

given permission to use hormones, stimulants, narcotics, 

cannabinoids, and a host of other drugs that we would never, ever, 

ever allow to be in a horse when it races. Now, consider that there 

is going to be an expansion of sports betting. There are things allowed in human sport that we don’t allow in horseracing. 

The anti-doping and medication policies we have are developed 

by considerable input from a network of anti-doping experts as well 

as the veterinary community. We are opposed to this bill because 

it is a radical and unnecessary federalization of a state responsibility that is exercised effectively. 

I would like to conclude by saying this. In most states, the regulatory jurisdiction over the horse does not reach young horses intended to become racehorses. As the bones of these young horses 

mature, the stage is set for their racing career. But there are drugs 

being used on these horses that the FDA has warned veterinarians 

about their safety, yet they are being used and used widely. Our 

concern is that their use may adversely affect bone development in 

ways that can contribute to stress fractures, which we already 

know are linked to catastrophic breakdown. 

This is the unregulated aspect of the sport, and we believe it 

needs to be addressed if we are serious about protecting our horses. 

This is controversial because it starts a discussion on regulating a 

part of the industry that currently has no regulatory oversight. 

We ask that this subcommittee clearly put an end to the debate 

on H.R. 2651. Only then can the industry, its regulators, interested 

public organizations, and interested lawmakers get on the same 

page on how to address ways to protect our horses. There are 

things the Federal Government can do to help; this proposal is not 

one of them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:] 

55 


35128.034
56 

[The attachments to Mr. Martin’s statement can be found at: 

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20180622/108463/ 

HHRG-115-IF17-Wstate-MartinE-20180622.pdf.] 

Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for your testimony. 

And, at this time, Mr. Fravel, you are recognized for 5 minutes 

for your statement. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG FRAVEL 

Mr. FRAVEL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and 

members of the committee, it is a great privilege to have the opportunity to address you today and to advocate for the passage of the 

Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017. 

My name is Craig Fravel, and I am the president and chief executive officer of Breeders’ Cup Limited. Our mission at Breeders’ 

Cup is to promote the racing and sale of Thoroughbred horses 

through the conduct of the Breeders’ Cup world championships— 

in my view, the preeminent international championships in all of 

Thoroughbred racing. 

I wish to begin my comments by emphasizing that I am not here 

to tear down this great sport. You will hear from others that we 

have made great strides in medication reform and enforcement 

over the last 10 years, and I do not debate that. 

My comments today, however, are about the problems we still 

face with the day-to-day conduct of racing and the confidence of the 

wagering and nonwagering public in our product and about conducting the sport under common rules administered consistently 

and fairly for all. 

When racing was reintroduced in the 1930s and 1940s, it was a 

highly local sport, governed by state regulatory authorities in those 

states that chose to permit parimutuel wagering. There was no wagering across state lines, at least not legally. And, for the most 

part, horses stayed put in the regions or states they called home, 

with some shipment to winter tracks in Florida or California or 

even to Bowie, near here, in my home State of Maryland. While 

horses did travel to participate in the Triple Crown races, for the 

most part it was a local game understandably played under local 

rules. 

Today, by contrast, wagering is primarily a simulcasting effort. 

And since the mid-1990s, an increasing share of our handle is 

placed online through authorized and highly regulated advance-deposit wagering companies. It is now commonplace for horses to ship 

from state to state, from California to New York and vice versa, or 

from overseas. This week, for example, there are U.S.-based horses 

running at the Royal Ascot meeting on the grounds of Windsor 

Castle, as guests of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. And last year 

at the Breeders’ Cup in Del Mar, California, there were 38 international runners from Ireland, the U.K., France, and South America. 

It is a modern sport now that is global in scope and that faces 

the challenges associated with all sports, whether human or 

equine. The challenges are modern, particularly in the world of 

medication, both legal and illegal. Again, there has been progress, 

but, for the most part, we remain a locally governed sport with different regulatory and enforcement capabilities in each state. 

57 

Yet we all need to be aware of the potential abuse of designer 

drugs, synthetic steroids, and similar agents and the possibilities 

ahead for manipulation of the equine genome to create or alter 

physical traits of our competitors. 

These modern challenges require concentrated, efficient, and sophisticated national programs for investigating regulatory matters, 

researching threats, testing, and prosecution. An international 

sport deserves the most advanced form of regulatory mechanism, 

not one based on 38 different state agencies with varying levels of 

funding, expertise, and experience. 

As I have said many times, if we were starting from scratch, 

knowing what we know now, would we have created a national organization such as the one contemplated by the Horseracing Integrity Act, or would we have 38 different rulemaking and enforcement bodies? I think it is obvious that we would choose the former 

and not the latter. 

The current process for national rulemaking remains unusually 

cumbersome. Let me give one example. And while it made sound 

like I am picking on my friends in California, I don’t mean to single 

them out. 

California is one of the most capably regulated states. Yet, when 

it came time to adopt the third-party LASIX administration leg of 

the RCI/RMTC National Uniform Medication Program, the regulation took almost 4 years to adopt. Unfortunately, the Breeders’ Cup 

had to adopt house rules to effectuate this important reform when 

running in California. 

From start to finish, the time a model rule is adopted, the implementation process across 38 states can take years. That is not to 

say that rulemaking should be fast-tracked all the time, nor should 

it be arbitrary. It should, however, allow for quicker implementation across state lines, as contemplated by the Horseracing Integrity Act. 

Before I became a racing executive, I spent the first part of my 

career as a securities lawyer, beginning my practice here in Washington, D.C. Having practiced law in that arena, I am a big believer in the power of consumer confidence in a product,and the 

fact that the Securities and Exchange Commission has primary 

regulatory authority over the securities industry engenders consumer confidence in financial reporting, fair trading, and efficient 

markets. While there of course have been failings, on the whole, 

the public has confidence in the markets. 

And I believe a commonsense approach to regulation in our thoroughbred business will enhance consumer confidence and bring 

about extraordinary gains economically as we present our great 

sport in the best light possible—the sort of light that deserves to 

be shone on such a great game. 

Mark Twain just once said that it is a difference of opinion that 

makes horseracing. It is my sincere hope that the differences of 

opinion we argue about in the future are about who has the best 

horse, not about how our sport is regulated and conducted. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Fravel follows:] 

58 


35128.035
59 


35128.036
60 


35128.037
61 

Mr. LATTA. And thank you very much for your testimony today. 

And that will conclude our testimony from our witnesses, and we 

will now move on to our questions and answers from our members 

to our witnesses. 

And, at this time, I am going to begin with recognizing the gentleman from Illinois, the vice chair of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes of opening questions. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I thank the chairman, and I thank you all for 

being here. And the sponsors of this legislation, thank you for your 

hard work and interest. 

It has actually been pretty interesting; there has been a lot of 

input on this issue since this hearing was announced, and we appreciate that. These are very important things that we are dealing 

with here, and I look forward to continuing to wrestle with these 

issues. 

Mr. Janney, some breeders use osteoporosis medication on young 

horses to increase bone density in those with signs of bone disease. 

And reports indicate that some breeders use them without good 

cause and in very young horses, sometimes to improve the horse’s 

x-ray images and other test results to make the horse more marketable to buyers. 

So my question is: Are racehorses regulated and monitored from 

birth or only once they enter racing? And, further, if they are only 

regulated during racing, doesn’t that mean that the breeders are 

actually the ones being allowed to operate without an outside authority ensuring the safety of the horses? 

Mr. JANNEY. I think that there is certainly an element of truth 

to what you are saying. I believe the answer would be that the real 

regulation of horses comes when they make their first appearance 

at the racetrack. 

And you do have a lot of sales that require horses to present 

themselves in the very best way that the buyers may like or to 

work a certain distance of ground at a later date so that they are 

attractive to buyers. And I think that is an area that does need to 

be looked at. Mr. Martin has said that is important; I think it is 

important too. We need a level playing field. 

I don’t think horses should be asked to do at a young age what 

they may not be capable of doing. The fact of the matter is, when 

a horse works fast as a juvenile, it attracts buyers. And so there 

is this push to get a horse to work very fast at a time in their lives 

when it may not be appropriate. So I have no problem with addressing that issue. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

Ms. Block, my understanding is that racehorses experience exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging, which, in layman’s terms, 

mean horses can bleed from their noses into their lungs during a 

race. To mitigate the severity of the bleeding, LASIX is administered to horses 4 hours before the race. 

I have heard from veterinarian groups that staunchly believe 

LASIX is necessary and its use is in the best interest of racehorses, 

especially for their health and welfare. So I have two questions for 

you on this point. 

First, does scientific research support the use of LASIX to protect 

racehorses from EIPH? And please provide a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ on that. 

62 

Ms. BLOCK. I am not a veterinarian, so I would defer to my colleagues on that first point. But, please, your second point? 

Mr. KINZINGER. Understanding that the Humane Society’s mission is to advocate for laws and to protect animals, how can you 

support a bill that bans LASIX on race day, a medication we just 

agreed protects horses—or, from what I have heard, agreed protects horses—when the American Association of Equine Practitioners, the North American Association of Racetrack Veterinarians, and the American Veterinary Medical Association all oppose 

the bill before us? 

Ms. BLOCK. Thank you. 

First of all, we have the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, and we have close to 10,000 members who support this 

bill and recognize the problems with race-day medications in this 

industry. And so we absolutely feel that this is important, this legislation is key. It goes well beyond LASIX. It addresses a whole 

host of issues and problems. 

And as for on race day, a horse out there, before the race starts, 

as people are assembling, with a needle to the horse’s neck is probably not the best thing everyone wants to see. It is not a perception 

that should be projected. And these horses should be able to run 

clean and safe, as many human athletes do in many sports. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I appreciate that. And I think, yes, nobody wants 

to see that, but if it is a medication that protects horses, then I 

think in some cases optics maybe should take a second place to actually the protection of the horses. 

Mr. Foreman, the horseracing industry is a state-regulated, 

state-sanctioned industry. And I am a big proponent of states’ 

rights, but I also know there can be a need for Federal uniformity 

at times. 

My understanding is that your organization has collaborated 

with others to promote the adoption of national uniform medication 

programs to provide uniformity based on four pillars. 

How long have you been trying to get this program adopted? And 

where are you finding resistance, and why? 

Mr. FOREMAN. Thank you, Congressman. The National Uniform 

Medication Program, and I think the title probably is being used 

against the industry by those who seem to think that we don’t have 

uniformity, is the product of many hours and years of work by the 

industry to determine from our existing rule book and our existing 

rules what can we do better to improve the regulation of the sport 

and the safety and welfare of the horse. 

And there were initially four areas that were identified. One was 

that there is even a misunderstanding, I think, probably among the 

committee as to what substances are administered to a horse. 

Horses are treated on a daily basis with therapeutic medications in 

their best interest for injury or illness. 

There are substances that don’t belong in a horse on a race day 

under any circumstances, and the public doesn’t understand the 

difference between the two, and that is something that the industry 

has wrestled with. For example—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. I hate to do this. I am going to have to—just because we are going over in time and we have a lot of questions. 

That was my fault for only asking with 20 seconds left. 

63 

Mr. FOREMAN. My fault for talking too long. 

Mr. KINZINGER. No, that is OK. 

Mr. FOREMAN. But there are four areas: controlled therapeutic 

medication, third-party administration of LASIX to get the vets out 

of the stalls on race day, a multiple-medication violation penalty 

system on top of the existing very well done disciplinary system, 

and the accreditation of our laboratories. 

The program started in the midatlantic, which is the largest concentration of racing in the United States, on January 1, 2014. And 

I have included maps and information in our packet that 97 percent of racing jurisdictions have adopted the controlled therapeutic 

medication list. Ninety-six percent of our laboratories are accredited. There is only one lab right now that is not accredited. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Sir, I am sorry, I am going to have to reclaim 

my time on that. I am sure somebody else may have questions on 

it. 

Mr. LATTA. And as always, we will make sure that questions that 

are asked by the committee will be submitted to the witnesses and 

will have the normal 10 days to submit and respond to them. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. And I will just ask unanimous consent, I have three things I want to enter into the record and also 

two letters from my constituents on both expressing opposition to 

this legislation. 

Mr. LATTA. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. At this time, the chair will recognize the gentleman 

from New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the ability 

to jump ahead in the process here because of the conflicts we have. 

I, again, thank you and the ranking member for the hearing. 

Let me cite Chris McCarron, our wonderful jockey in the audience, and it is good to have you here today. Thank you for what 

you brought to the arena, your talent, your ability, your passion for 

the sport. Thank you for expressing your concerns about this issue 

and being supportive of a concept that can bring great strength to 

the industry, seated next to Terry Finley, who was so active with 

my home state’s horsemen’s association. Great to have everyone 

here. 

Mr. Fravel, in your testimony, you make it clear that horseracing 

is not only an interstate sport but an international one. More than 

50 percent of horses cross state lanes to race, and 90 percent of the 

handle comes from interstate betting. 

With that in mind, can you explain why it would benefit the 

sport if a horse running in Texas ran under the same rules as a 

horse running in, for example, New York? 

Mr. FRAVEL. Well, I think if one of our challenges is making sure 

that consuming public understands our sports better, it is important that we have one set of rules. I mean, baseball teams, other 

than the designated hitter rule, don’t play under different rules 

when they travel from one league to another, one city to another. 

And, we have had that problem in racing for many, many years. 

And in the old days, it was fine. Horses stayed where they were. 

The public wagered on site. But now, we travel around the world, 

64 

and we need a modern system to enforce our regulations and to 

create them. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Janney, can you describe where the United States 

stands in terms of medication rules in comparison with the rest of 

the world? In what ways does this divergence impact the domestic 

industry? 

Mr. JANNEY. Well, we have talked a lot about NUMP, and it really has, I think, five elements, and I think Mr. Foreman would 

agree with that, because the last one is out-of-competition testing. 

So there is some agreement among the states as to which substances are on the list, though not as complete as has been suggested. 

With third-party LASIX, we are getting there slowly. There are 

places that don’t adhere to that rule. With penalties, we are getting 

there to some extent, not as fast as any of us would like and maybe 

not in my lifetime. 

Labs are interesting, because if you don’t have good labs, you 

don’t really have anything. I am a board member of the New York 

Racing Association. We operate Saratoga, Belmont, and Aqueduct. 

Currently, we have requested of the Governor of New York for 

money in the State budget, which I believe he is going to do, for 

a new lab in New York, which will be up to international standards. And that is the most important thing I will say, is the lab 

in New York is in no way up to international standards. 

The positives called in New York are one of the lowest in the 

country. Does that mean that people in New York are more lawabiding? I don’t know. But it is alarmingly lower than any other 

state, particularly for a major racing state. So the request is in. 

There will be study money, I think, for a new lab in New York. 

And the CEO of New York Racing has spent a great deal of time 

going around to Hong Kong, to the French lab, to others, to the 

Olympic labs that USADA uses, because there isn’t anything in 

this country that meets that standard, the most important of which 

is double-blind testing. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Janney, in your opinion, does the Horseracing 

Integrity Act add an additional layer of bureaucracy or does it coordinate States into a single rule book with penalties? 

Mr. JANNEY. Well, everybody here has said we need to have uniformity. Well, this is the quickest way. This will get there, again, 

in my lifetime. The compact won’t. The compact was discussed 10 

or 15 years ago. One state said yes—that was Kentucky—and nobody else. 

You have on your record, the Stronach organization that is racing in Florida, California, and Maryland, saying they want the 

horseracing act. You have the New York Authority saying we want 

the horseracing act. So my view on a compact and other ways, 

whether it is NUMP, is that it is more designed to waste time. We 

are not going to get where we need to be, and this act does that, 

and that is why I am so in favor of it. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

Mr. Fravel, there have been concerns expressed about the intent 

of Horseracing Integrity Act to replace state racing commissions. 

65 

What do you envision the relationship between the state racing 

commissions and the new anti-doping agency as being? 

Mr. FRAVEL. The Act, as currently drafted, allows the new horseracing entity to delegate authority to states that as long as they 

are meeting certain standards and quality assurance. So I think 

that the possibility is that these two things will exist greatly in cooperation with one another, not replace, but simply streamline and 

make much more efficient the rulemaking and enforcement process, 

which is something that we all tend to agree on. So I am not sure 

I understand the vehemence with which some people oppose this 

if we all are trying to achieve the same thing. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Chair, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back the 

balance of his time. 

And at this time, the chair will recognize the gentlelady from 

California for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Foreman, in your testimony, you state that H.R. 2651 is not 

the best interest of the racing industry. Why do you believe that 

to be the case? 

Mr. FOREMAN. I believe it is the case because the existing framework with which we work under works well. We are all operating 

under one rule book throughout the country. Our industry is regulated by state regulators. The regulation of our sport is very similar. 

There is, in my view, no reason to superimpose on what is a system that is working very well, a group of people who know nothing 

about the business. I don’t think it is realistic that the industry is 

going to roll over and allow others who are outside the industry to 

essentially make the rules for them. 

In the proposal in the legislation actually is doing what we are 

doing now. It is just who is going to be in charge and who is going 

to make those decisions, and I believe that that is why states have 

legalized racing. And no different than any other—the lotteries, 

regulated by the states; sports gaming will be regulated by the 

states; casino gaming regulated by the states. Gambling is not for 

the Federal Government. Horseracing is not for the Federal Government. 

If I could just make one correction to a statement that was made 

about our laboratory system, because I think it is important. Our 

labs are all internationally accredited, except for one. To say that 

a laboratory in New York does not meet international standards is 

incorrect. They all must meet accreditation under ISO 17025. 

What we have done in the industry is created a code that is 

stricter than the WADA code, and we require our laboratories to 

meet that standard, in addition to international standards. And no 

other laboratories in the world are required to meet our standards. 

We are better than the other laboratories. The laboratory in New 

York is accredited both to international standards and to what we 

call the RMTC Code of Standards. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you. 

Mr. Fravel, is LASIX used at the Breeders’ Cup? 

66 

Mr. FRAVEL. We tried to eliminate the use of LASIX for the 

Breeders’ Cup championships, and because of the provisions of the 

Interstate Horseracing Act we were prevented from doing so. We 

would certainly prefer to run our races under international rules 

that ban the use of LASIX. And I think if you were watching your 

television on NBC this week, you would see hundreds of horses at 

the Royal Ascot meeting without LASIX under no duress whatsoever. 

Mrs. WALTERS. In your capacity as the CEO of the Breeders’ 

Cup, have you ever proposed a ban on LASIX? 

Mr. FRAVEL. Yes. We tried to implement that, and we did have 

2-year-olds racing without LASIX in 1 year, but we were forced to 

back away from that. 

Mrs. WALTERS. So how was that received by the industry? 

Mr. FRAVEL. Many of our members were quite concerned that we 

were not able to enforce our rules and many members of the training committee were happy that we were not able to enforce those 

rules. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Hamelback, I have several questions for you on the use 

of LASIX. Is the use of LASIX currently mandated? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. I apologize. The use of LASIX is not mandated 

for any athlete. 

Mrs. WALTERS. Is the use of LASIX uniform at races, meaning 

are all horses that race administered the medication? Are all 

horses that race administered the medication? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. I believe the answer is all horses are not administered LASIX. If it is administered LASIX, it is publicly posted 

into the program and—but if a choice of an owner and their professional with the veterinary acknowledgment does not choose to utilize LASIX on their horse, they do not do so. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. How is the veterinarian involved in the process? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. In my opinion, the decision to place your horse 

on the LASIX list, as we would call it, in order to make the decision to utilize that therapeutic medication, it is a joint decision 

made by the owner, the veterinarian, and ultimately the trainer, 

or some may say the coach. What would happen and should happen, it should be directed under the veterinary care, making sure 

that the health and welfare of the individual is most taken care of. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. So if every horse is being administered 

LASIX, does any horse gain a competitive advantage? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Not in my opinion. Again, it is very well said 

that LASIX can help in EIPH systems. So by that, if it prevents 

EIPH from occurring, then most certainly it is going to allow the 

horse to perform at its natural talent. If bleeding does occur beneath the alveoli of the lungs, then, yes, that would inhibit. So in 

my opinion, it would inhibit the horse from actually gaining his advantage of just natural talent. 

Mrs. WALTERS. OK. Thank you. I am out of time. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes. 

67 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Janney, do you believe that we would see fewer catastrophic 

injuries, horse deaths, injuries to jockeys, if we banned the administration of drugs during the 24-hour period before race day? 

Mr. JANNEY. Well, I think it would improve the situation. Our industry has a very difficult perception problem, particularly with 

LASIX. Now, LASIX, in my view, probably doesn’t prevent people 

from figuring out if there are other drugs that shouldn’t be there. 

So that is not the issue. The issue is sticking a needle in a horse’s 

neck 4 hours before the race. They lose more than 20 pounds in a 

sport which basically says weight is important. 

Chris McCarron rode at—what did you ride at? Probably 112, 

113 pounds and with weights. It was a very slight tolerance. So the 

horse loses weight. 

The other thing is, we have a terrible problem with, if you look 

at any betting show, and if I don’t run horses on LASIX if they are 

2-year-olds. I do when they become 3 because I feel like I have to 

compete. I would prefer not to. 

But I will guarantee you that when one of my horses steps on 

the track, that whoever is doing the analysis for the betting public 

will say, you ought to bet on the Janney horse because that horse 

is getting LASIX for the first time. 

And I will follow that up by saying, the Pegasus Cup last year, 

Frank Stronach, who doesn’t believe in LASIX, that was a $15 million race. Bob Baffert had a horse in there called West Coast that 

was our champion 3-year-old last year. He was going to Dubai after 

that and run without LASIX. But he was offered a 5-pound weight 

allowance, so in other words, he would carry 5 pounds less if he 

didn’t administer LASIX before the Pegasus. And Bob Baffert chose 

to administer LASIX. So I think at least Bob Baffert is saying it 

is a performance-enhancing drug. So that would be my answer. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. Ms. Block, I understand that most racing 

countries, as you have mentioned—I didn’t know that The Humane 

Society actually did exist in the U.K. and Australia—but also 

Japan banned certain drugs on race day, but the United States 

permits the use of race-day drugs. 

So what effect does that have on the health of horses that race 

in the United States compared to their counterparts that race in 

other countries where race-day drugs are banned? 

Ms. BLOCK. Thank you. Yes, Humane Society International, 

which is the global affiliate of HSUS, we are actually in 14 countries and incorporate in 14 countries and work in about 20 others. 

So the health of these animals in these other countries where there 

are racing traditions, they are doing just fine. There is not any indication that they are ailing or suffering because they are not using 

race-day medications. And so it is a standard by which we think 

that the U.S. should also be able to meet. 

And as it has been mentioned, these horses do travel internationally. When they are over there in the other countries, they are racing just fine. So in an effort to bring the U.S. up to this global 

standard, I think it is necessary to pass this legislation. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

68 

OK. Mr. Fravel and Mr. Janney, most countries with longstanding horse traditions ban LASIX on race day. Actually, Mr. 

Janney, I think I heard from you on LASIX on race day. 

So let me ask you, for your wife, Mr. Fravel, what do they use 

instead of LASIX to treat or prevent bleeding? 

Mr. FRAVEL. Well, most international jurisdictions do not permit 

any supplemental treatment for EIPH. For example, Hong Kong, 

probably the most successful racing in the world, the highest handle anywhere in the world, has the most rigid and well-regulated 

medication protocols in the world. And horses there, they manage 

to fill races with a population of 1,250 horses. 

So I think the concern that the sky will fall if we prohibited the 

use of LASIX is unfounded. It happens everywhere in the world on 

a daily basis and the horses get around just fine, if not even better 

than they do here. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And I also appreciate your adding that it certainly hasn’t hurt the industry either, all those that are involved. 

Mr. FRAVEL. Again, probably the three most successful racing jurisdictions in the world—Australia, Japan, Hong Kong—all run 

under regimes that do not permit any administration of race-day 

medication, including LASIX. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Janney, from your testimony, I believe that you would 

like to see uniformity in the medication standards that are given 

to racehorses. Perhaps shouldn’t Congress rely on the states to 

adopt the model rules that have already been developed? 

Mr. JANNEY. I am not a young man. I know I look that way, but 

I am 69 years old, and it is my—— 

Mr. LANCE. You do indeed look young. 

Mr. JANNEY [continuing]. It is my considered opinion that I 

would never be around to see that day. It will not happen. I have 

worked for the last 20 years being in rooms with other people to 

try to figure all this out. And the status quo for a lot of people is 

exactly what they want. And what I am here to do is try to provide 

the things that are going to be necessary for this industry so that 

my children can enjoy it. 

Now, just before I close, I think Mr. Foreman got it backwards 

on the labs. He said that all but one lab is IFHA accredited. That 

is not right. There is only one lab in the United States that is, so 

it is the exact reverse of what he said, and that is the lab at Davis 

in California. 

Mr. LANCE. I will get to you, Mr. Foreman. 

How many states have adopted the model rules so far, sir? 

Mr. JANNEY. Nobody has adopted all of the rules. The rules are 

five and—they are five elements to NUMP. When I was in school, 

I didn’t get a lot of credit for just answering one question. So what 

you heard this morning is that people have somewhat agreed on 

what the list should include of prohibited substances. But then it 

falls off very rapidly, and it particularly falls off without a competition testing, which Mr. Foreman has identified as one of the most 

69 

important elements. And I can assure you that Lance Armstrong 

never failed a post-race test or a pre-race test. He only failed outof-competition testing when people understood what he was taking. 

And so in California, 2 days ago, or yesterday, I think, the proposal that was ratified by the Association of Racing Commissioners, 

which is the foundation of NUMP, their rule on out-of-competition 

testing came before the California Horse Racing Board. It did not 

do well. Their equine medical director, Rick Arthur, said a number 

of things. I will quote some of them and—— 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Janney. In fairness, we ought to 

have Mr. Foreman be able to respond. 

Mr. FOREMAN. Thank you, Congressman. We have heard something today that actually is somewhat new to us, and that is IFHA 

laboratory accreditation. That is something that the international 

labs have been working to accomplish for some time because we 

have been so successful in this country with the creation of our 

RMTC code of standards. 

There are no international code of standards, and the international laboratories have been trying to organize a program very 

similar to what we do in the United States. So I stand by my statement that all but one of our laboratories is accredited to ISO 

17025, which is the international laboratory standard. 

With respect to what is referred to as the NUMP program that 

no one has adopted, this program started in the midatlantic. The 

midatlantic is the largest concentration of racing on a daily basis 

in the United States. New Jersey is a participant. 

Mr. LANCE. Indeed, yes. 

Mr. FOREMAN. This program started in the midatlantic. All of the 

states in the midatlantic have adopted all five prongs of the Uniform Medication Program and they are in effect. And the program 

is now sweeping through the country, and you can see from our 

maps how it is being adopted throughout the—— 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Martin, you wish to comment, I believe? 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Congressman. We hear a lot about uniformity. A lot has been said about a patchwork of 38 different 

states, each with their own rule book. Well, each state does have 

its own rule book, but those rule books are substantially similar 

and they are based upon the model rules. The State of New Jersey, 

the New Jersey Racing Commission, with regards to medication 

policy, has adopted the model rules by reference. 

The constituencies that are most concerned about any minor inconsistencies from state to state are the horsemen, and the horsemen are universally opposed to a radical restructuring of the current system. 

If the Congress is interested in having one set of standards, perhaps the easiest thing to do—and I can’t speak for everybody else 

at this table—would be to adopt the ARCI model rules by reference, because it has been years and years and years of well 

thought out research and interaction between our veterinary community that has gone into the creation of those rules. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

70 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, 

Chairman Latta, for having this hearing, and also Ranking Member Schakowsky. 

Ms. Block, what kind of understanding do you have about what 

LASIX does to a horse’s lungs? Is there any relevance or connection 

between LASIX and the lungs of a horse? 

Ms. BLOCK. I do have some basic understanding, but as I said, 

I am not well versed in this area, so I would defer to my colleague 

on this. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Anybody want to state for the record what the 

connection is between a horse’s lungs and the use of LASIX? 

Yes, Mr. Janney. 

Mr. JANNEY. There is certainly a percentage of horses that do 

bleed to the extent that it harms their performance. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Excuse me. Thank you for pointing that out. 

Bleed to the extent that it harms their performance. 

Mr. JANNEY. Yes. There are small capillaries in their lungs, and 

as the air rushes in and out, there may be some degree of bleeding. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. 

Mr. JANNEY. We never knew about that until the flexible stethoscope was invented. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So we know now? 

Mr. JANNEY. We do know now. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Now, when a horse is administered LASIX, is it 

1 percent chance that their lungs are going to bleed at least to a 

small degree? A 2 percent, a 10 percent, a 90 percent chance? What 

is the chances that bleeding of the lungs will occur when a horse 

has been administered LASIX? And understand, I am talking about 

a horse that is going to be running, not a horse that is sitting in 

the stall. 

Mr. JANNEY. There are plenty of horses that are administered 

LASIX and they do bleed. The question is whether they bleed to 

the extent that it inhibits their performance. There is a scale of one 

to five, and I think the thought is that if a horse bleeds on a one 

or two scale, it probably doesn’t make too much difference. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, are there any veterinarians on the panel? 

Nobody on the panel is a veterinarian? That is unfortunate, because I think we missed an opportunity. We are talking about a 

drug. We are talking about horses. For example, if a jockey is practicing or is going on the track on race day, and that jockey doesn’t 

feel good, that jockey can say, hey, I don’t feel good, and maybe 

they can get things in order by the time the race happens or during 

practice or get that person some help to make sure they are OK. 

But the horses, their only way of communicating that their lungs 

are bleeding is, it appears to me, when you see the blood coming 

out of their nose when you are in real practice of LASIX administered to horses. 

Have any horses donated their lungs to science? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. May I address—— 

71 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. The reason why I ask that question is because I 

used to love to play football when I was a kid just way too much 

with or without a helmet. And look what happened to me: I am a 

Member of Congress. What does it take to run for office in this 

country these days? I would venture to say I was affected to a certain degree, but then I have the ability to make choices. I have the 

ability to raise my hand and say, hey, I need help or something is 

wrong or what have you. 

And one of the things that concerns me about LASIX and horses 

is, I can understand that maybe 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 

years ago, 100 years ago when people were racing horses and then 

all of a sudden sometime during that timeframe LASIX got involved, and people said, hey, this is something that helps or this 

is something that is good or this is something that maybe we 

should be using. But now, we have entire countries who are saying, 

you know what, LASIX, no, not a good idea. Now that we have 

science, not a good idea. 

And what I would venture to believe—unfortunately on this 

panel we don’t have one—is that on balance, veterinarians who 

deal with horses, veterinarians who have actually dealt with animals, horses that have been administered LASIX or they have had 

to come out and go look at them or what have you and then render 

their opinion about the health and safety of that horse, I would 

venture to believe that, on balance, those veterinarians are probably shaking their head going, you know what, human beings, 

LASIX with horses, stop it. 

And the reason why I have joined this bill is because, unlike football players, horses, their voice is up to us human beings as to 

whether or not we are going to listen, we are going to learn, and 

we are just going to do the right thing. And LASIX is something 

that I think that us as intelligent human beings know today that 

LASIX is something that is probably not good for the horses. 

With that, I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance 

of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thanks 

for holding this hearing as well. 

My first question is for Mr. Hamelback. My understanding is 

that LASIX is administered 4 hours before the race, is that correct, 

and why? Can you please explain why LASIX is administered on 

race day as opposed to the prior day? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Yes, that is correct, Congressman, that the optimum time stated through research to be most efficacious for treating EIPH or preventing EIPH is between 3 to 4 hours. That is also 

the timeframe that studies done at the University of Kentucky 

Gluck Center prove that there is no further dilution within the 

blood; therefore, the masking that many people talk about is irrelevant because it is not proved to be so if it is administered at that 

timeframe. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. OK. Let me ask another question, and I will probably get different answers and maybe you answer this question. So 

whoever wants to answer this, please. 

72 

Will a bettor be more inclined to bet on a horse—because I have 

been away from it for a long time—if that bettor knows that this 

horse is given LASIX? And, I need to know that. Well, anyway, can 

you answer that question? What is your opinion? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. I would like to address just one thing going forward. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes, please. 

Mr. HAMELBACK. I want to make sure that, for the record, the 

veterinary groups, unfortunately they were not selected here, they 

have publicly opposed this bill. So I would like to make sure that 

that is on record because we weren’t allowed to address that. 

If a wagering individual is aware, which, again, LASIX is transparent, it is publicly put into the program—— 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. In Florida, I know that that is the case. So 

the wager would know. 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Correct. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. And it is also announced, I think, in the public 

address system as well—— 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Depending on if there is a correction. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS [continuing]. The horse is on LASIX. Yes. 

Mr. MARTIN. Congressman, LASIX use is almost ubiquitous. And 

I say to people, if every horse in that race is running on LASIX, 

could you tell me which one has the advantage, and they can’t. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Yes. They can’t tell you. 

What is the alternative? Mr. Foreman, prior to the use of LASIX, 

how were horses treated to address exercise-induced pulmonary 

hemorrhaging? 

Mr. FOREMAN. Well, there were a number of therapies and a 

number of concoctions that were being used prior to the legalization of LASIX, and that is one of the reasons why the industry welcomed the advent of a new medication that was safe and effective 

and leveled the playing field. 

But the single biggest concern about eliminating LASIX and 

what is done internationally as well as in this country, if LASIX 

is not permitted, you withdraw water from the horse for at least 

24 hours prior to competition, and you withdraw food. That is how 

it is done. Don’t think for a second that horses don’t bleed in Europe. They may not be able to use LASIX on race day, but the most 

effective therapy for a horse that bleeds is to withdraw water 24 

hours prior to competition. 

Now is that humane? Is that in the best interest of the horse? 

Would you rather see horses who are raced dehydrated because 

they are less likely to bleed and see other concoctions? They used 

to use adjunct bleeder medications that we have banned, 

carbazochrome, Kentucky Red, other concoctions that they would 

give to a horse that anecdotally horsemen believed would affect 

whether or not the horse bleeds or not. 

But to think that we would go back to a situation where we were 

the Wild West before LASIX was permitted and that we were allowed to starve or to withdraw water from our horses or to do other 

things, to me is irresponsible. And we would be shirking our responsibilities to our primary responsibility, and that is the health 

and welfare of the horse, if we were to withdraw a horse that the 

veterinary community has now elevated to a disease, the EIPH facVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:52 Mar 07, 2019 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-143 CHRIS
73 

tor. We have a safe, effective medication that does not affect the 

performance of the horse. Why would you deprive a horse of that? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Anyone else want to comment? That is the bottom 

line. We care about the horse, the health and welfare of the horse. 

Mr. JANNEY. Well, I would like to, if I could. We have heard a 

lot about the veterinary community, and they are in a very difficult 

position. If you or I go to see our doctor and he looks at us and 

says, well, after 45 minutes, more exercise, less eating. And we 

leave. We expect to get a bill. 

That is not the way it works at the racetrack. If a vet comes into 

my stable, and my trainer says, go look at the horse down in stall 

one. He is a little sore. Go look at the one down on three. I think 

there is a problem with an ankle, whatever. He doesn’t get paid unless he prescribes something, some medication. 

I have never paid a bill for a consultation. And so you are really 

conflicted because as a veterinarian, as a racetrack vet, you are not 

going to feed your family giving consultations. And the Thoroughbred Safety Committee, and Chris McCarron is on that committee, 

recommended 2 or 3 years ago, one of our principle recommendations was go to a system like a human doctor where somebody gets 

paid to analyze and maybe not prescribe. 

LASIX is a very lucrative business. The vets basically are selling 

the compounds that they are putting into a horse. If your horse 

may have an ulcer problem and you are getting GastroGard for it, 

the vet has bought the GastroGard. He resells it. And that is just 

a fact of life at the racetrack, and it is not the way we ought to 

do business. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. LATTA. I’m sorry. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Sir, I have worked for veterinarians for much 

of my professional career, and I find it offensive that Mr. Janney 

addressed the veterinarians in that way. 

Mr. LATTA. The chair at this time recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our witnesses for being here today. 

Ms. Block, do you know how the death rates for horses in the 

U.S. compare with death rates in other countries? 

Ms. BLOCK. I am sorry. Could you repeat that? Could you repeat 

that question? 

Mr. GREEN. The death rates for horses in the United States as 

compared to other countries. 

Ms. BLOCK. I don’t have the statistics on that, and I can certainly 

compile that for you and present it later. 

Mr. GREEN. OK. If you could, get it back to us. 

For the panel, all the panel, are horses in the United States more 

prone to bleeding during races than racehorses in other countries? 

And if so, why would you believe that? Why would that be happening? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Sir, there was a study done in 2009 in South 

Africa. Over 167 horses were tested and scoped. Over 80 percent 

of those bled to some degree, so that is why we believe it is necessary. 

74 

Mr. JANNEY. I will maybe add a little bit to that. A lot of the 

other countries have different training centers. We tend to house 

our horses at the racetrack. They tend to be in more urban environments. Air quality may not be as good. We have a definite predisposition for speed in a race, and those kinds of elements do affect what is going on, and it probably makes our bleeding a bigger 

problem than it might be in other jurisdictions. 

But the fact of the matter is, even having said that, it is really 

10 percent of the population that we are talking about. Ninety percent of the horses don’t need LASIX, but they get it anyway, and 

then they get a bottle of electrolytes after they race to try and rehydrate them. So it is a problem. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Martin, is pulmonary bleeding painful for the 

horses? Although none of us are horses, I guess we don’t know. 

Mr. MARTIN. I didn’t know I looked like a horse, Congressman. 

I can’t answer that question. The only thing I can say is what 

has been alluded to, is the American College of Veterinary Internal 

Medicine has elevated its assessment of the degree of seriousness 

of EIPH. 

We reopened this issue in 2011 because it has always been a controversial issue within the racing industry. We brought in experts, 

veterinary experts, research experts, and we concluded that there 

was no science that would necessitate taking away this medication 

that is given either for reason or prophylactically to protect the 

health of the horse when it races. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Fravel, you said in your testimony that the 

Breeders’ Cup conducts out-of-competition testing on approximately 

85 percent of all starters in the Breeders’ Cup and put prospective 

starters under 24-hour surveillance 72 hours prior to the start 

time. Are such stringent measures common or is the Breeders’ Cup 

more unique in this respect? 

Mr. FRAVEL. I would say, other than Hong Kong and Japan, that 

the regimen that we have established for the Breeders’ Cup is the 

most strict in the world, certainly the most strict in the United 

States. 

As I said in my written testimony, the processes that are implemented on large event days, like the Triple Crown races, the 

Breeders’ Cup, I think security testing, out-of-competition testing, 

is all very advanced. It is the day-to-day racing where I think the 

public lacks the confidence that those same kind of safeguards are 

in place, and the same level of expertise in the testing and enforcement is missing. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Janney, opponents of the bill have shared concerns about the USADA’s lack of expertise in veterinary science for 

horses specifically. Do you see that as being an obstacle to implementing H.R. 2651? 

Mr. JANNEY. I don’t. We humans share 98-plus percent of our 

DNA with horses. And most of the drugs that are coming into the 

horse industry that could be described as performance enhancing 

are coming from human medicine. There is really not a huge 

amount of research in new drugs that are in the equine field. It is 

really all coming from the human side. 

And USADA has a huge amount of expertise in figuring all that 

out, and it has to be very intelligence-based testing. You have got 

75 

to know what you are looking for, because if the molecule has 

changed in any way, you are not going to find it. So really, I think 

they are the best people to go forward with this. 

We are in a new world. I would love it to be a different world 

where people didn’t take an edge, but they are taking an edge now 

in a way that is far more effective than it used to be. And that is 

our problem. And we have to work very closely with the other 

sports to figure out what is happening. 

It used to be we only had to worry about what was going on in 

the harness industry and whether it was migrating over into the 

Thoroughbreds. That isn’t the case anymore. It could be a Russian 

athlete that is taking something and it works pretty well in a horse 

too. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I didn’t think Russians would be in horse races. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And just to let the committee know that we might have votes as 

early as 11:15, so I would like to make sure that all members keep 

their questions at 5 minutes so we can get the questions in prior 

to votes. 

So at this time, the gentleman from West Virginia is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I come from northern West Virginia in Wheeling, and I grew up 

around Wheeling Downs, Big Bill Lias, and this issue is certainly 

something that we would have heard about back then about the 

doping of horses and all the problems we had back then. But in 

that area, now, Wheeling Downs then switched over to Greyhound 

racing, but we still have the meadows and Mountaineer Park. So 

it is something very much a horse industry, is very important to 

me and how we have done that growing up around it. 

So I have got to say that in the few years, 8 years I have been 

here, when people come before the panel, there is sometimes a little bit of confusion of whether or not they are with us or against 

us on this—on any particular bill, but not on this one. 

You two, Hamelback and Martin, I don’t know if you didn’t get 

the memo. Your passion came out pretty strongly about where you 

stand on this, so I am fascinated with that, but I want to hear the 

counter to it as we debate this. 

So, Mr. Fravel, tell me where they are wrong. We heard the testimony. Where are they wrong? 

Mr. FRAVEL. Well, the gist of a lot of this testimony is, things are 

going fine, we are doing well, don’t mess with us, that we don’t 

need a national program, we can do it all ourselves. 

Mr. Janney mentioned yesterday an example, and I mentioned it 

in my testimony in California. One of the four components of the 

National Uniform Medication Program was third-party LASIX administration. It took 4 years to get that done in California. 

A year-and-a-half ago, we all met in Arizona, and we adopted, as 

part of the RMTC and RCI, the out-of-competition testing rules. 

Yesterday, after 18 months of deliberation in California, that was 

referred back to committee because the rule was claimed to be unclear or failed to meet the Administrative Procedures Act. 

76 

I am concerned with this conversation focusing so much on 

LASIX. If we came up with a new medication tomorrow that could 

be administered 24 hours out and prevented EIPH, it would take 

4 years under the current system to get that implemented nationally because there would be so much arguing over its effectiveness 

and research and everything else. The current system takes too 

long. It takes forever. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Let me go to Mr. Hamelback, if we could. You 

have been hearing the testimony now on the other side of the issue. 

Where are they wrong, so that you could refute or bolster your 

case? What should I be listening to? 

Because the concern I have a little bit is the fact that internationally they can use LASIX up until the day of the race and 

they can’t on the day of the race. So I need to be educated a little 

bit more about that position and also in debating what you are 

hearing their testimony. Where are they wrong? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. First off, as the son of a Marine and United 

States American, I am not sure that I really worry about what they 

do internationally. What we do in the United States is the number 

one industry in the world, period. 

I think the burden of proof comes to them. They need to tell us 

why this is necessary, because statistically it is not. Plain and simple. There is no proof of what we are doing currently needs further 

oversight. 

Do we need more time and money to be spent on researching, as 

Mr. Janney said, designer drugs? Absolutely. Do I need to continue 

to hear LASIX equated as a drug? I do not. LASIX is a therapeutic 

medication, no different than Advil. I take LASIX every day for 

high blood pressure. It is safe. It is effective for a problem that was 

elevated to a disease. And I need to make sure, as the only one 

that raised horses up here, it is the health and welfare of the horse 

that we take care of first. 

So, yes, I would say that my members would be the first to stand 

and say if there was a medication proven that would be as effective 

or preventing EIPH and you could administer it 36 hours out, that 

is what is best for the horse, that is what our mission statement 

says, that is what we are going to do. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fascinating subject, 

passionate on both sides. 

I was a doctor before I was in Congress, so I am not a veterinarian, but I was a people doctor. And so I am fascinated with how 

this is focused on LASIX. As a heart surgeon, I gave people LASIX 

all the time. 

And so when you get down to the facts, here is what we need 

to know, I think, when you want to determine whether a medication is effective or not. First of all, what is the incidence of the disease you are trying to treat; whether or not the medication you are 

giving treats it; in what percentage of patients it is effective to 

treat the problem that you are proposing you are treating. And you 

77 

also want to make sure there is clinical significance in the problem 

that you are treating. 

And I am not convinced of any of those things as it relates to 

LASIX in horseracing, other than the fact that horses lose a bunch 

of weight, which gives a racing advantage, clearly. 

So I guess I would start with Mr. Fravel here. What is the information that says, number one, the instance of this problem is significant enough? You said, Mr. Janney, 90 percent of horses, no 

problems. So you are down to 10 percent, roughly. What is the incidence of the disease? Is the medication being used to treat that disease? What is the effectiveness of it? And is there a clinical significance in treating the disease enough to actually treat it? 

Mr. FRAVEL. Let me try to give you my laymen’s understanding 

of those questions. One, all horses bleed to some degree under intense levels of exercise. That was only discovered, as Mr. Janney 

said, with the introduction of the flexible endoscope. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Can I interrupt you then on that? That is a good 

point, because that means that, was there overt clinical evidence 

of bleeding prior to looking down into the airway and say, hey, 

there is a little bit of blood there? 

Mr. FRAVEL. There was only the incidence of epistaxis from the 

nose. And I think the incidence of that in Hong Kong, for example, 

is about 4 percent—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. OK. So very, very low incidence of actual clinical 

evidence. 

Mr. FRAVEL. So there have been studies that were mentioned in 

South Africa that do indicate that LASIX does have a positive impact on horses that do bleed. So it might reduce a four to a three 

or a two to a one. 

The other answer to some of those questions, physiologically we 

don’t know the impact on individual horses. People say, well, it is 

not performance enhancing. My wife, when she has one glass of 

wine, is a lot different than I am when I have one glass of wine. 

So we don’t know, actually, in individual equines how that medication affects their individual performance. Their trainers may have 

a better idea than I would or the wagering public would, but we 

don’t know the answer to that. 

The final part of that question is I believe there has been some 

research that indicates that although there is some pathological 

change in the lungs as a result of bleeding over time, we don’t have 

any indication that that has reduced the life expectancy of horses, 

their useful life as a racehorse, nor is there any clinical indication 

that there is a disease that follows that pathology. So—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Mr. Janney, and then I will have one of the other 

people that opposes the bill give their comments. 

Quickly, do you have anything to add? 

Mr. JANNEY. Well, I think that one of the things that you have 

to worry about is the perception on the industry and being out of 

step with the rest of the world. I disagree a bit with my colleague 

over here on the left. We sell our horses in international markets. 

There is a reason that Keeneland has written a letter supporting 

this bill. I think that reason is that every other national association 

talks about why U.S. horses are inferior. Whether that is true or 

not, I am not saying. 

78 

The second thing is that Mr. Gagliano, who is president of The 

Jockey Club, is always going to international forums. And at those 

forums, always the other international bodies say why should we 

accredit your races in the United States when you run on race-day 

medications? 

Mr. BUCSHON. I am going to interrupt you there because I have 

only got a few seconds left. Thank you. 

Anyone else? 

Mr. Martin, quickly. Do you have any comments? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think the history of LASIX is well known. I think 

the research that has been done subsequent to the 30 years when 

it was first put in place probably makes the case more to permit 

it. As far as international, in North America, Canada allows 

LASIX. There are a ton of standardbred horses that cross the border and race—— 

Mr. BUCSHON. I am going to interrupt you there because the 

chairman wants me to stay on time, and thank you all for your 

comments. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields 

back. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our panel 

for being here. Thank you, Andy, for leading on this. 

Mr. Foreman, are states’ racing commissions equipped to properly regulate the horseracing industry? 

Mr. FOREMAN. They have done it for over a century and they are 

doing it now, so the answer is yes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Would you consider horseracing, though, out of 

state? Would you consider it more of a national sport than just a 

state sport at this point? 

Mr. FOREMAN. Our sport is national to the extent that we are 

permitted to simulcast our races throughout the country and that 

we have betters who are betting on races. 

Mr. MULLIN. I am asking this because I know the answer to this. 

Do the horses travel across state lines? 

Mr. FOREMAN. Particularly in the midatlantic, which is the largest concentration in the United States, they are crossing state lines 

every day. 

Mr. MULLIN. So commerce would be traveling across state lines 

at that point, right? 

Mr. FOREMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MULLIN. OK. And I think that is kind of what we are—of 

course, we are talking a lot about LASIX here. I get that. But the 

fact is is that Congress does have a role for the commerce side of 

it, that is why we are Energy and Commerce, when it crosses state 

lines, even when it comes to sports. 

I do not like regulations at all. I think we are equipped to regulate ourselves, so everybody needs to understand that. But Congress does have a role when it starts crossing states’ lines. That is 

a role that we have to regulate. 

And so when we are starting to talk about the bill and talking 

about moving forward, it is not about the industry. The industry 

79 

can oversee itself. Those that are participating can oversee it. So 

we have got 32 different jurisdictions that are working to try to 

uniform the standards right now inside the horseracing, I get all 

that. But what role does Congress have to play? 

In this particular role, when we start talking about the horseracing industry, not track to track, does Congress have a role to 

play in this or not? 

Mr. JANNEY. Very quick answer. If you all hadn’t passed the 

Interstate Horse Racing Act, we wouldn’t be here. I wouldn’t be in 

the business, and there really wouldn’t be an industry. 

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Hamelback? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Does Congress play a role in NASCAR? They 

travel from state to state and compete in different—— 

Mr. MULLIN. We do some. We also do in NCA sports, and we do 

in the NFL. We do in major league baseball, in the NBA. Not in 

the UFC, but we will with MMA. 

Mr. HAMELBACK. But ultimately, each commission of the 34 parimutuel governed jurisdictions, which Oklahoma, obviously you 

have Will Rogers Downs, Thoroughbred Racing Association of Oklahoma. 

Mr. MULLIN. The Oklahoma horseracing industry is not for this, 

and I understand it. I am not for overregulating. I am just asking 

the question, does Congress have a role to play in it or not? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. I do not think so. Each state is 100 percent uniform that has racing. 

Mr. MULLIN. But the horses travel outside the state if it is—— 

Mr. HAMELBACK. You have to abide by the rules that are in that 

state. 

Mr. MULLIN. And the horses travel from track to track, and the 

owners travel from track to track, right? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Right. 

Mr. MULLIN. Yes. My first cousin, who is a very good friend of 

mine, very close, we traveled all over the place, rodeoing together, 

because my background is rodeoing. I think quarter horses are better than thoroughbreds, but, that is my jab there, guys, so go with 

me. Make light of the situation. 

But he shoes horses all over the place. He travels from track to 

track, which makes the industry not just regulated or not just overseen by just one state. I don’t like it any more than anybody else. 

I don’t want to overregulate the industry. The industry is successful and it is working. I get that. But Congress does have a role to 

play here. 

As much as I don’t like it, that is the end of—really, that is the 

end or the beginning of our conversation. When it crosses a state 

line, that is where our role plays. That is why we have interstate 

commerce and intrastate commerce. That is why there are two different things. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. JANNEY. The difference between NASCAR and us is we are 

betting. Now, sports betting is coming. 

Mr. MULLIN. I am sure there is no betting on NASCAR. 

Mr. JANNEY. Well, sports betting is coming, and you will have, 

as a committee, I am sure, a very interesting question as to what 

you want to do. But the fact of the matter is, the reason we are 

80 

all here is the Interstate Simulcasting Act, and people in California 

are betting on New York races and vice versa. And that is really 

the important element. 

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Foreman, go ahead. 

Mr. FOREMAN. Congressman, interestingly, the Interstate Horse 

Racing Act does not regulate simulcasting. Simulcasting is regulated by the states. 

Mr. MULLIN. I agree with that. 

Mr. FOREMAN. All that the Interstate Horse Racing Act does is 

prevent simulcasting to states that have not legalized gambling, 

and lets the industry regulate but permits it in states that allow 

it. 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. I feel we are a long way from getting this 

fixed, but this is a conversation that needs to be had. And I appreciate Congressman Barr for bringing this up because, as we do 

need to look forward, we do need to understand what role we have 

or haven’t to play in this. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LATTA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Hamelback, in your testimony, you state that the U.S. AntiDoping Agency lacks equine knowledge. How do you think that will 

affect or impede their ability to be effective? 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Certainly, we feel like it is well known and 

publicized that the United States Anti-Doping Agency has experience in human testing professional human sports. It is our belief 

that while they do have that expertise in humans, crossing over to 

the equine world is not only different, it is logistically different. 

Nothing in this piece of legislation actually puts them doing anything different than we already have in place now. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Share briefly the logistical differences. 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Beg your pardon? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Share briefly the logistical differences that you 

are referencing. 

Mr. HAMELBACK. Well, for one, I would say the quantity number 

of tests. And one thing that we have continued to not be exposed 

to is the economic impact that this is going to have on our industry. To me, I see that as a very logistically difficult hurdle to get 

over. At this point, nothing has been done as far as an economic 

study to show us what this is going to cost with a new, some could 

say two new regulatory bureaucratic layers added onto us already. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Fravel, I invite you to respond to anything that might have 

been said, as well as explain to the committee more about the potential abuse of designer drugs in horseracing. 

Mr. FRAVEL. Is that question for me? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRAVEL. Well, I think all of us read in popular publications 

how designer drugs are introduced on a daily basis. And, the term 

‘‘designer drugs’’ is probably overstated. There is constant research 

in human medicine directed at developing new medications. And, 

81 

somehow or another, those things find their way into horseracing 

or athletics or areas they weren’t intended at all. 

So, the concern here is that we don’t have a concerted national 

effort to identify threats as they occur, whether those be genomic 

alterations or designer drugs or other kinds of practices that none 

of us are aware of. It is hard for those of us who are honest, honestly, to come up with devious things that other people come up 

with, but we need to find a national organization to identify those 

threats and deal with them. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. FOREMAN. Congressman, if I could just respond to your question about USADA? 

Mr. COSTELLO. Yes, and then I have a followup. 

Mr. FOREMAN. USADA does not regulate the performance horse 

industry that participates in the Olympics in this country. They 

may do to the human athletes, but they do not do the equine competitions. That is regulated by the United States Equestrian Federation, which has its own governing body, its own regulations, and 

its own laboratory. 

So, clearly, USADA is not capable and qualified, or they would 

be doing the work of the Olympic Committee and the performance 

horse industry in this country. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

You indicated there is also total uniformity as it relates to banning performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing. If that is the 

case, why do proponents of this bill still wish to see it enacted? 

Mr. FOREMAN. Well, as I have said in my testimony, I don’t think 

it is about uniformity. I think it is about LASIX, and I think it is 

about getting the regulation of the sport into the hands of those 

who are not the state regulators who are permitting the practice 

right now. And I think that is fundamentally what is going on 

here, and I think you can hear it in the debate. 

The industry is focused on performance-enhancing drugs. The industry is focused on every aspect of medication and drug testing. 

The industry created a consortium back in 2004 that would be the 

scientific arm of the industry, because that is what those who are 

proponents wanted—an independent scientific arm to advise the industry on medication matters. 

And that is an organization that has done very well. It is one we 

rely on. And they are the scientific body of the industry that makes 

the recommendations to us. And, quite frankly, when it comes to 

the work we are doing with designer drugs or other new drugs that 

are entering the marketplace and into racing, we do that research 

and we do that work through the RMTC. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. 

Any quick followup from anyone on those points? 

Go ahead, Mr. Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. The issue of designer drugs has come up, and the 

lack of some kind of organization. You are sitting next to one, and 

the RMTC is another one, and the Association of Racing Chemists 

is a third. And when we get information about the use of a particular substance, it goes into that network in various ways. 

And I know the New York lab has come under some criticism 

here, but I used to be the racing and wagering executive director 

82 

in New York. And the first time I met Dr. Maylin, that is when 

I started to appreciate—he would spend all his free time on the 

internet, cruising the blogs of other sports to see what they were 

using and then trying to develop ways to detect that. 

And that has not changed in all of those years. As a matter of 

fact, it was the New York lab that recently discovered the use of 

a designer drug that nobody else had the ability to test for, and 

then that was circulated out through the network of labs. 

We may not be real good at tooting our own horn, but there is 

a system in place. It may not be perfect, but there is a system in 

place. And we work every day to strengthen it and try to make it 

better. 

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. I encourage you to supplement your 

testimony with any additional written response. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And the chair recognizes himself at this time. 

Mr. Foreman, are there any concerns with having the Federal 

Trade Commission oversee this type of a program? I am not aware 

of a similar program overseen by the agency, and I would appreciate your thoughts on that. 

Mr. FOREMAN. I am not aware of any other program similar either, particularly in our industry. 

I think it is interesting that the involvement of the Federal 

Trade Commission, obviously, invokes consumer protection. And I 

envision—and I said it in my statement, and I wasn’t engaging in 

a hyperbole—that if there is a move to eliminate LASIX in this 

country, in racing in the United States, it is going to force owners 

out of the business. It is going to force at horse sales that go on 

in many states throughout the country, auctions and sales, a disclaimer that is going to have to be put on horses that are sold that 

they are potential bleeders, that they may suffer this incidence of 

EIPH, that they will not be able to treat that horse for racing, and 

that horse may not be able to race. 

Now, can you envision buying an automobile or a product where 

you are told at the time of sale that this product may have a problem, it is likely to have a problem, you are not going to be able to 

fix it in a way that you can use it? Are you going to buy that product? And that is why you don’t see the breeders organizations 

throughout the country supporting this bill. Because they know 

what is going to happen; it is going to chill sales. 

You have owners who have horses that bleed. If you take this 

medication away from them, they will leave the business. Where 

are those horses going to go? This is not Europe. We have thousands of races in this country. We have 32 states conducting racing 

on a daily or a seasonal basis. We have tens of thousands of people 

employed in this business, and it is labor-intensive. You take these 

animals off the racetrack; where are they going to go? And that is 

the welfare crisis that I am talking about. 

And I am sure many of you have heard from constituents who 

are in this industry and what effect what you think is a simple 

change will have on the economics of the horseracing industry. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

83 

In the balance of my time, Mr. Janney, in your testimony, you 

mentioned the use of a number of drugs in reference to 

milkshaking. Would you explain what this is and what you have 

seen with respect to cheaters using this type of method? 

Mr. JANNEY. Well, milkshaking has probably had its heyday, but, 

basically, what it was doing was loading up with bicarbonate, 

which had an effect on slowing the deterioration of strength in the 

muscles because it slowed down the oxygen leaving the muscles. I 

am not a scientist, but that is basically what was going on, and 

horses were being loaded up with bicarbonate. 

After quite a long time, the industry addressed it. They did address it on a state-by-state basis. It did take, as I say, a very long 

time, but, fundamentally, we are able to look at levels of oxygen 

in the blood and come to some determination. 

Having lived through it in New York, where I was on the New 

York racing board, I can tell you that the limit was set so high that 

it still allowed a fair amount of milkshaking to go on. The numbers 

were such that you could go over that but you could also milkshake 

and stay under that limit. And that is kind of where we are today. 

But there is no question that milkshaking can be effective and 

that horses end up with more stamina, to complete the race. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

I am going to yield the balance of my time. And I see that we 

have no other members wishing to ask questions. But, first of all, 

I want to thank our panel for being with us today. It has been a 

very informational and informative meeting today. 

But before we conclude, I would like to ask for the following documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent, and 

we have quite a number: A letter from the American Quarter Horse 

Association; a letter from American Racing and Entertainment; a 

letter from Chris McCarron; a letter from the Equine Health and 

Welfare Alliance; a packet of documents from Alan Foreman; testimony from William Lear of The Jockey Club; a letter from the 

Stronach Group; a letter from the Ohio State Racing Commission; 

a letter from Barbara Banke of Stonestreet; testimony from Matt 

Luliano of The Jockey Club; documents and a letter from Dr. 

Thomas Tobin; testimony from William Thomas of Keeneland Association; a letter from the New Racing Association; a letter from the 

U.S. Trotting Association; a letter from West Point Thoroughbreds; 

a letter from the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association; a letter from 

the North American Association of Racetrack Veterinarians; a letter from the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association; a letter from Shawn Smeallie of the Coalition for Horse Racing Integrity; a collection of documents from the Humane Society of the 

United States; and a letter and roster from the Water, Hay, Oats 

Alliance. 

[The information has been retained in committee files and can be 

found at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20180622/108463/ 

HHRG-115-IF17-20180622-SD003.pdf.] 

Mr. LATTA. And, with that, I again want to thank our witnesses 

for testifying today. And as I mentioned a little earlier, if there are 

additional questions that would be submitted the record by our 

members, that we would have about a 10-day period for you all to 

answer those letters. 

84 

So, again, I appreciate you all for being here today and for your 

testimony. 

And, at this time, the subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

85 


35128.038
86 


35128.039
87 


35128.040
88 


35128.042
89 


35128.043
90 


35128.044
91 


35128.045
92 


35128.046
93 


35128.047
94 


35128.048
95 


35128.049
96 


35128.050
97 


35128.051
98 


35128.052
99 


35128.053
100 


35128.054
101 


35128.055
102 


35128.056
103 


35128.057
104 


35128.058
105 


35128.059
106 


35128.060
107 


35128.062
108 


35128.063
109 

Æ 


35128.064