U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–803 PDF 2008

BREEDING, DRUGS, AND BREAKDOWNS: THE 

STATE OF THOROUGHBRED HORSERACING 

AND THE WELFARE OF THE THOROUGHBRED 

RACEHORSE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 

Serial No. 110–129 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, . R., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff 

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel 

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk 

DAVID L. CAVICKE, Minority Staff Director 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois, Chairman 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

Vice Chairman 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio) 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida, 

Ranking Member 

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, 

Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

prepared statement 1 ...........................................................................................

Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, opening statement ....................................................................................... 1 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 3 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 7 

WITNESSES

Alan Marzelli, President and Chief Operating Officer, The Jockey Club, New 

York, New York .................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 174 

Richard Shapiro, Chairman, Caliornia Horseracing Board, Calabasas, California ..................................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 178 

Jack Van Berg, Trainer, Inglewood, California ..................................................... 27 

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

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 180 

Randy Moss, Analyst, ESPN ................................................................................... 27 

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

Submitted questions 2 ......................................................................................

Arthur Hancock, President, Stone Farm, Paris, Kentucky .................................. 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 182 

Jess Stonestreet Jackson, Stonestreet Farm, Geyserville, Georgia ..................... 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Submitted questions 3 ......................................................................................

Lawrence R. Soma, V.M.D., Professor, School of Veterinary Medicine, New 

Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania ........................................................ 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 183 

Susan M. Stover, D.V.M., Ph.D., Dipl. ACVS, University of California-Davis ... 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Wayne McIlwraith, Ph.D., D.V.M., F.R.C.V.S., Gail Holmes Equine 

Orthopaedic Research Center, Colorado State University ................................ 93 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 95 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 195 

Mary C. Scollay, D.V.M., Equine Medical Director, Kentucky Horse Racing 

Authority ............................................................................................................... 114 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 116 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 195 

Allie Conrad, Executive Director, CANTER Mid-Atlantic, Gaithersburg, Maryland ........................................................................................................................ 125 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 127 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 198 

Alexander M. Waldrop, Chief Executive Officer, National Thoroughbred Racing Association ..................................................................................................... 168 

Page

VI 

Alexander M. Waldrop, Chief Executive Officer, National Thoroughbred Racing Association—Continued 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 169 

Submitted questions 4 ......................................................................................

1 Mr. Rush did not submit a prepared statement. 2 Mr. Moss did not answer submitted questions for the record. 3 Mr. Jackson did not answer submitted questions for the record. 4 Mr. Waldrop did not answer submitted questions for the record. 

(1) 

BREEDING, DRUGS, AND BREAKDOWNS: THE 

STATE OF THOROUGHBRED HORSERACING 

AND THE WELFARE OF THE THOROUGHBRED RACEHORSE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRADE, 

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jan Schakowsky presiding. 

Present: Representatives Schakowsky, Barrow, Hill, Whitfield, 

Stearns, Pitts, Terry, and Burgess. 

Staff Present: Christian Fjeld, Consuela Washington, Valerie 

Baron, James Robertson, Brian McCullough, Shannon Weinberg, 

Will Carty, and Chad Grant. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. The Subcommittee of the Commerce, Trade 

and Consumer Protection Subcommittee will begin and come to 

order. 

I want to begin my opening statement once again acknowledging 

our subcommittee Chairman, my friend and colleague Bobby Rush, 

who continues to recuperate in Chicago. We all look forward to his 

swift return to Washington. At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert Chairman Rush’s statement into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Rush was unavailable at 

the time of printing.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for 

the purpose of an opening statement. 

The death of Eight Belles on the track of the Kentucky Derby 2 

months ago was a symptom of a host of problems that plague thoroughbred racing. The best racehorses in the sport are bred for 

speed because they make their money in the breeding shed instead 

of on the racetrack. Catastrophic breakdowns of thoroughbred 

horses are becoming more common as they become increasingly 

fragile over the years. Horses are doped up on performance-enhancing drugs such as cocaine, caffeine, and anabolic steroids to make 

them as fast as possible. 

2 

Whether horses are sturdy enough to withstand the rigors of racing, it is really an afterthought, and almost no one pays attention 

to what their lives are like after they retire. As the horses falter, 

more and more jockeys face serious injuries and paralysis, and with 

no central regulatory body overseeing the sport, there are almost 

no real restrictions on any of these practices. 

It seems that greed has trumped the health of horses, the safety 

of the jockey, and the integrity of the sport. Although breakdowns 

have always been a part of this sport, long-term racing commentators and horsemen assert that the thoroughbred horse as a breed 

is becoming weaker. This may be because commercial breeding focuses on creating faster horses at an earlier age with little regard 

to the consequences of their practices. 

Take a look at the pedigree of the late Eight Belles, for example. 

Many observers say—is the chart up? It is not on the monitor. OK. 

Many observers say that Eight Belles was a genetic disaster waiting to happen. If you look at the chart, you can see her bloodlines 

were too inbred. Her great-great-grandfather four generations back 

on her father’s side, Mr. Prospector, was also her great-grandfather 

on her mother’s side three generations back. This is known as a 

three-by-four inbred. And Mr. Prospector, his father, Raise a Native, and his father, Native Dancer, all had something in common. 

Mr. Prospector was a brilliant racehorse, but he was also very unsound. He was retired due to chronic ankle injuries; raced only four 

times and won all four races, but then broke down. Native Dancer, 

another fast racehorse that was retired due to chronic inflammation in his ankles. Eight Belles came from a brilliant but fragile 

bloodline. All of those sires had problems in their ankles. And if 

this weren’t enough to raise alarm, her father, Unbridled Song, 

highlighted up on this board, was another fast racehorse who 

showed brilliance later on, but who was permanently retired because of, yes, a fracture in his front ankle. 

To professional breeders her pedigree should have raised alarms, 

but they proceeded anyway, and many would argue that millions 

of people saw the horrible consequence of their choice live on national television. 

Also disturbing is how these animals are abused while they are 

in their prime. Horses are commonly injected with so many performance-enhancing drugs and other medications that it has become almost impossible to tell what their natural condition is. 

Many racehorses are regularly injected with painkillers which 

allow them to run injured by masking the pain in his or her legs 

and joints. According to data submitted to the committee by the 

Racing Commissioners International, there were nearly 1,900 drug 

violations in horseracing in the last 5 years. But whether or not 

this data is accurate is questionable given the absence of reporting 

requirements throughout the industry. 

What is going on here? What is happening to the Sport of Kings? 

Unlike every other professional and amateur sport, horseracing 

lacks a central regulatory authority or league that can promulgate 

uniform rules and regulations. While baseball and football now impose strict rules that severely penalize players for steroid and performance-enhancing drugs, horseracing remains a confusing patchwork of different regulations from State to State. 

3 

One of the central questions that the subcommittee wants to explore is, does horseracing need a central governing authority? Is 

the racing industry truly capable of making reforms on its own 

under the current regulatory framework? 

There are those who believe that Congress should not be involved 

in horseracing; however, Congress is already involved. The Interstate Horseracing Act, which is under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction, allows racetracks a unique status under Federal law. Unlike 

any other gambling operation in America, they are allowed to 

transmit their racing product across State lines and receive wagers 

from bettors out of State. 

It is because Congress allows horseracing this benefit that 90 

percent of the $15.4 billion wagered on horseracing is from simulcast betting. As such, I ask all witnesses and all of the industry 

stakeholders to work with us, work with us to clean up your sport, 

work with us to save thoroughbred racehorses from destruction on 

the track. I say that, by the way, as a former owner of a thoroughbred who did perform on the track. Work with us to protect jockeys 

that ride them, work with us to create uniform tough standards 

that apply to every State, work with us to restore horseracing back 

to its perch as one of the America’s most popular spectacles so that 

it can truly live up to its nickname as the Sport of Kings. 

I want to welcome all of our witnesses. I know they are the stars 

of the industry and commentators on the industry, and look forward to hearing each of your testimony. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I will now recognize the Ranking Member Mr. 

Whitfield for 5 minutes to make an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Chairwoman Schakowsky, thank you very much 

for holding this important hearing. And I, like you, would certainly 

want to welcome our witnesses today on both panels, all of whom, 

I believe, have the best interest of this industry at heart. And we 

look forward to your testimony and what you have to say and what 

suggestions you might make to us about this important industry. 

This industry is vitally important to our country, not only economically, over a $40 billion-a-year effect on our economy. Many 

people obtain a lot of recreation by attending races around the 

country. And then we know racing is an important and cherished 

part of this Nation’s history. But I do believe that horseracing is 

at a crossroads today, and I would like to reiterate what the Chairwoman said, that—and I agree with her—greed has trumped the 

health of the horse, the safety of the jockey, the strength of the 

breed, and the integrity of the sport. 

Now, why do I say that? I think there are three primary problems in this industry today. First of all, our horses race on druginduced ability more than natural ability, and therefore, when we 

select winners for breeding, we are not necessarily selecting the 

best horse from a soundness standpoint. I read an article recently, 

and the author said that the question used to be who had the best 

horse, but many people today say, who has the best veterinarian? 

4 

I don’t think that that is good for this industry in the long term, 

and it certainly has had an impact in many different ways. 

A second problem area, in my view, is a lack of transparency regarding deaths on the track, regarding injuries on the track, and 

the ramifications that has for safety issues, particularly for the 

jockeys. I remember a couple of years ago we had a hearing, and 

Gary Birzer, a jockey, was injured up at either Charlestown or 

Mountaineer. He is a quadriplegic today. He had no insurance because the Jockey’s Guild let him down, and his rehabilitation and 

his family—basically his medical needs are being met by Medicaid, 

a taxpayer program. 

And then I might also say that I read an AP article that said 

over the last 5 years there have been 5,000 deaths on the track, 

but that did not include all of the States, it only included 29. It did 

not include all of the tracks in Florida, only one. Then I read another article that said there had been 3,035 deaths over 5 years. 

The fact is we don’t really know the answer to that because there 

is not a uniform tracking system in this industry. We know how 

many starts there are, but we asked the Jockey Club how many 

horses finished, how many horses were euthanized, how many 

horses were scratched, and they didn’t know the answer to that. 

And we know that a horse named Runaway Sue up in Charlestown 

about 4 weeks ago was killed in the starting gate, but the official 

designation of what happened to that horse was that she was 

scratched. So I do agree with Dr. Rick Arthur, the California medical director, when he said nobody knows truly how big a problem 

this because the data is simply not there. 

A third issue in this industry is the lack of a central authority 

or an entity that has the regulatory power and authority to make 

decisions and to enforce rules and regulations. As has already been 

stated, there are 38 different racing jurisdictions, and there is not 

any one entity that can enforce those regulations. So that is a real 

problem. 

Now, I know people that have been critical and they said the 

Federal Government has no part in this industry, but we know 

that the industry came to Congress back in 1977–1978 and asked 

that Congress pass the Interstate Horseracing Act to allow 

simulcasting that today provides 90 percent of the revenue of the 

$15 billion that is wagered each year. And then they came back in 

2006 and asked Congress to amend it to address some concerns 

with the Wire Act because of the problems with the Department of 

Justice. And yet when Congress looks at the Horseracing Act as a 

vehicle to improve the sport, they all run away and say, no, the 

Federal Government does not need to be involved. But I would submit that if the Federal Government provides the revenue, the vehicle for the revenue, simulcasting, we have a responsibility to set 

minimum standards to ensure the safety of those participants, to 

ensure the integrity of the breed and the sport, and to ensure that 

we have a uniform medical rule around the country. 

So I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today. And 

thank you again, Chairwoman Schakowsky, for holding this hearing. And I do also want to thank Chairman Rush, who had the 

hearings on the anabolic steroids and their impact on all the 

sports, including horseracing, and obviously without his support 

5 

and your support, we would not have a hearing today. So we are 

thinking about Chairman Rush today as well. Thank you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Whitfield. 

And now Mr. Stearns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, and I thank 

you for this hearing. And I thank the Ranking Member Mr. Whitfield for his very illustrative opening statement, which I think is 

echoed by many of us in this room. 

I say to the witnesses and to the people who are listening, this 

hearing is a wake-up call for you. There is abuse in your industry. 

You know it better than I. When I chaired this subcommittee during Republican control, we had hearings on steroids in baseball, 

football, basketball, professional wrestling, hockey, and what we 

said to the witnesses was we don’t want to come in and regulate 

you, we want you to regulate yourself. So this is a wake-up call. 

As Mr. Whitfield said, we have jurisdiction here. You come to us 

and ask us for regulation. And then a lot of you come to us and 

say, oh, don’t bother regulating us, but you wanted us to pass legislation in 1978 and 2006. And then you come back here and say, 

well, we don’t have any jurisdiction. And that is oftentimes what 

we hear from our constituents. 

But I am saying there is a wake-up call here for you. We are 

talking about an industry with over 7 million Americans involved 

in the horse industry. It generates $112 billion in economic activity 

and supports 1.4 million full-time jobs. You have a fiduciary responsibility to make this industry transparent. 

In my hometown of Ocala, we have—between Levy and Citrus 

County, we have over 1,000 horse farms. And all these people are 

trying to do the right thing, but they are going to need leadership 

from the people in this room. 

I cochair the Congressional Horse Caucus, so I am deeply concerned about this industry, and I just want to know, was this a 

freak accident with Eight Belles, and was this demonstration something that we are going to see continually, or are you folks going 

to step up to the plate and do something? I don’t necessarily want 

you to work with us. Work without us and prepare this Sport of 

Kings so that everything is in order and that there are rules and 

regulations that are promulgated from the top so that we don’t 

need to develop a central regulatory authority from Congress. We 

are asking you to step up to the plate. 

Over the past 5 years, 3,035 thoroughbred horses have died in 

horseracing tracks across this country. Are you going to tell me this 

is normal, is this OK? Are these deaths the result of unsafe commercial breeding practices, of unsafe track surfaces, or of trainers 

administering certain drugs to improve the horse’s performance? 

Now, obviously in the hearings I had in baseball, football, and 

basketball we made the case. We asked them to come up with a 

drug program, and they did. And so I think that was very effectual 

for our subcommittee on our hearings. There are trainers in this 

industry who give their horses cocaine, an illegal drug, to enhance 

their performance, and all they receive for this is a slap on the 

6 

wrist or a small fine. Likewise, there are trainers who administer 

pain medication to mask a horse’s injury so that they still can run 

a race even if this is detrimental to the long-term physical wellbeing of the horse. 

Today’s horses appear to be much more fragile than the great 

racehorses of the past. Now, is this something that would require 

us to step in, or can you set up some type of regulatory authority 

for horseracing so that this can be transparent and prevent these 

horses from almost committing suicide? 

We have a place in this discussion as Members of Congress. As 

Mr. Whitfield pointed out, we passed the Interstate Horseracing 

Act, which allows racetracks to accept bets from across State lines. 

The interstate track betting significantly contributes to the $40 billion thoroughbred horseracing industry. So I hope the people in 

this room, and a lot of people in the horse industry who are making 

a fortune, should have a moral responsibility to step up here and 

try to answer these questions and put in place some kind of regulatory authority so that this does not continue. 

I look forward to the testimonies today, Madam Chairman, and 

I thank you for this hearing. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Stearns. 

Next in order of appearance, Mr. Terry. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the opportunity, and I welcome our witnesses. I especially enjoy having 

Jack Van Berg here, as I worked at Ak-Sar-Ben Racetrack for 4 

years; put myself through 2 years of college and 2 years of law 

school there in its good days. And your horses were always stable 

there, pun intended. And a good friend of mine, Bob Kruger, whose 

grandsons are my interns here, you trained their grandfather’s 

horses right now. So they are really enjoying working this issue. 

This is eerily similar to some hearings we held almost 2 years 

ago with boxing, and how boxing had failed to regulate itself, perhaps even taking itself down to the level of wrestling, and the 

McCain bill to try and create a Federal commission within the Department of Commerce to regulate boxing. And there is, of course, 

as the opening statements have pointed out, some high jinks within 

horseracing that I think belittle the majesty of the sport. 

It is a great sport. I will tell you there is nothing better than 

being along the rail as the horses come around the turn, and the 

sound of it is just thrilling. But to think that the bloodlines have 

been prostituted in a way that maybe makes the horse lines more 

fragile, and risking injury and death is a legitimate issue that the 

industry needs to look at. 

Of course, the doping issue. We have been criticized for looking 

into baseball doping, so I don’t know where we are going to be on 

ESPN tonight on criticizing horse doping, but it is an issue. And 

I think it is something that the horseracing industry needs to look 

at so fans like me, when a horse comes around the turn, we know 

is in a legitimate competition and not leading the pack because of 

what drugs had been administered to it before the race. 

7 

So I am looking forward to your testimony with some nostalgia 

from my days at Ak-Sar-Ben Racetrack and Jack Van Berg’s days 

there as well. And thank you for holding this hearing, and I yield 

back. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

And now Mr. Pitts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding this 

important hearing on Breeding, and Drugs and Breakdowns: The 

State of Thoroughbred Horseracing and the Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse. I also extend my thanks to Mr. Whitfield for 

his leadership on this issue and in bringing this hearing to fruition. 

Along with my colleagues I remain deeply concerned about the 

use of drugs in horseracing. It is vital that the industry and its 

leadership come up with immediate long-term solutions to this 

problem, or those in the industry with major concerns will turn 

elsewhere for permanent change and correction. 

There are a number of major concerns in this industry, including 

the health and safety of horses, the health and safety of jockeys, 

and the fact that this is the only industry that is allowed by Congress to conduct interstate gambling to the tune of approximately 

$15 billion. That is a tremendous amount of money involved in an 

industry with little or no accountability. 

The National Football League suspends highly talented players 

from games or even entire seasons for their abuse of animals, like 

dogfighting or even for conduct that reflects poorly on their sport. 

In horseracing, however, reports suggest that individuals can get 

away with injecting horses with illegal and legal drugs that harm 

the animals and simply get a $2,000 fine or less. This is problematic. Why should people who abuse horses be allowed to get away 

with it? They shouldn’t. 

As was discussed during the February hearing that this subcommittee held on steroids and drug use in sports in general, it is 

the integrity and honor of competition that is at stake. The integrity of horseracing is at stake. It is time for the industry as a whole 

to take a stand and end the abuse of horses, whether that be 

through drugs or through questionable breeding practices, which 

endangers both the horses and the humans who ride them. Watching a horse like Eight Belles who was cared for very well run a fantastic race and then be euthanized during her cool-down because 

of fractures in her ankles is deeply disturbing. 

I look forward to hearing from all of our guests today. I would 

like to extend a particular welcome to Dr. Lawrence Soma from the 

New Bolton Center, which is in my legislative district, congressional district. Your work on these issues is greatly appreciated. I 

am delighted that you are here today to provide us with testimony 

and insight on how we can best find solutions to the existing problems in this industry. 

In addition, I would like to extend my appreciation to Randy 

Moss for his leadership on this issue. 

8 

Thank you to each of our distinguished witnesses for being here 

today, for providing us with your insight and recommendations on 

how to address these important concerns, and I look forward to 

your testimony and yield back. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

I would like to introduce all of the witnesses and then call on 

each in turn for a 5-minute presentation. 

I want to also associate myself with Mr. Pitts’ gratitude to Mr. 

Whitfield for his leadership on this issue, and explain that this 

hearing is completely bipartisan in terms of the positions being 

taken by the Democrats and the Republicans on this committee. 

So I want to welcome you. And the first panel includes Alan 

Marzelli, president and COO of the Jockey Club. The Jockey Club 

is the breed registrar of all thoroughbreds in North America. In 

this role the organization promulgates regulations and standards 

on how a thoroughbred qualifies to be registered. 

Richard Shapiro is the chairman of the California Horseracing 

Board. California is the largest racing jurisdiction in the United 

States, and Mr. Shapiro chairs the body that regulates horseracing 

in that State. 

Jack Van Berg, as you heard, is a trainer. Mr. Van Berg was inducted into the Racing Hall of Fame in 1985 and is best known for 

training the late great Alysheba, who retired as the richest horse 

in the world in 1988. 

Randy Moss, analyst, ABC and ESPN, is one of the leading pundits on horseracing in America and currently works for ABC Sports 

and ESPN. He has been covering horseracing for 30 years. 

Arthur Hancock, III, is the owner-breeder at Stone Farm. Mr. 

Hancock is a fourth-generation horseman, and is perhaps most famous for owning and breeding 1989 Horse of the Year Sunday Silence. 

Jess Jackson is the owner-breeder at Stonestreet Stables. Mr. 

Jackson of Kendall Jackson wine fame owns Curlin, who won 

Horse of the Year honors for 2007. Mr. Jackson surprised the racing world when he brought back Curlin to the track for his 4-yearold season. 

There is a name plate up there, but someone is missing. 

And we had expected Richard Dutrow. And I just would like to 

note the empty space for him, the trainer for Kentucky Derby and 

Preakness Stakes winner Big Brown. Apparently Mr. Dutrow was 

too ill to travel to Washington, D.C., and will not testify with our 

other witnesses today. Unfortunately Mr. Dutrow never informed 

this committee of his illness, and despite numerous attempts to 

reach Mr. Dutrow, he never notified anyone on committee staff that 

he would not be attending this morning’s hearing. I am disappointed by his absence, and I am disappointed that he did not 

feel the need to notify the subcommittee directly of his decision. 

Given Mr. Dutrow’s stature and reputation in the sport, I think it 

would have been a valuable addition to this public dialogue. I hope 

in the future when Mr. Dutrow recovers from his illness, he will 

join us and be part of the solution to clean up the sport of horseracing. 

I would like to remind all witnesses—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Chairman, a point of information? 

9 

Is it possible that we could submit questions to Mr. Dutrow in 

his absence? Perhaps we could send questions that we have and 

ask for his reply in anticipation of him coming back at a later date. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, as Mr. Whitfield just pointed out, we 

may have another hearing, but I think that submitting questions 

in writing and could become part of the official record. Well, we 

will discuss afterwards how that would become part of the official 

record. 

Mr. STEARNS. Speaking in light of the fact that he said he would 

be here, meaning that he would comply, and the fact that he hasn’t 

shown up, I assume that he would be interested in answering questions. So I would request that the committee put together a letter 

with our questions on both sides and submit them to him and see 

if he will reply. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. We will certainly take that under advisement. Thank you. 

I want to remind all witnesses that your written statements have 

been shared with committee members and submitted for the 

record. And as I mentioned before, I would like to remind the witnesses if they have opening statements to please take up to no 

more than 5 minutes for their statements. 

And we will begin with my left, your right, with our first witness, 

Mr. Marzelli. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN MARZELLI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, THE JOCKEY CLUB, NEW YORK, NEW 

YORK 

Mr. MARZELLI. Good morning, Chairman Schakowsky and members of the Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here 

today and to briefly share with you some information about the 

Jockey Club. 

At the outset I want to state that the Jockey Club shares the 

concerns expressed by the members of this committee and is committed to being an agent for change throughout this process. The 

Jockey Club was formed in 1894, and it is the breed registry for 

all thoroughbred horses in North America. We are also a founding 

member of the International Studbook Committee, which serves to 

coordinate the policies and practices of studbook authorities around 

the world. 

A key ingredient to accomplishing this is through the development of the internationally accepted definition of a thoroughbred as 

contained in Article 12 of the International Agreement on Breeding, Racing, and Wagering. There are presently 64 countries that 

are signatories to this important article. As signatories, each 

studbook authority, including the Jockey Club, incorporates the 

provisions of Article 12 into its own rules. 

Neither Article 12 nor our own rules themselves promote specific 

attributes. To do so would be at best subjective and potentially restrictive to fair trade and free-market enterprise not only here, but 

around the world. 

I would also state that Article 12 of the international agreement 

is perhaps the best example of the global racing community harmonizing the rules of different jurisdictions in order to facilitate crossborder commerce. Curlin was mentioned earlier. The rules that are 

10 

in place around the world through the International Studbook 

Committee are what permit a horse like Curlin to travel internationally and be recognized as a thoroughbred everywhere he 

goes. 

Now, beyond our primary mission as keeper of the American 

studbook, the Jockey Club has since our inception maintained a 

leadership role in numerous and wide-ranging industry initiatives. 

Time and time again the Jockey Club has devoted very substantial 

efforts and resources to projects that we believed in. The spring of 

2008 was one of those times. The tragic breakdown of Eight Belles 

at the conclusion of this year’s Kentucky Derby prompted the Jockey Club to announce the creation of a Thoroughbred Safety Committee whose purpose is to review every facet of equine health, including breeding practices, medication, the rules of racing and 

track surfaces, and to recommend actions to be taken by the industry to improve the health and safety of thoroughbreds. 

We have been meeting regularly since early May and, as you 

may know, issued our first set of recommendations 2 days ago. This 

wide-ranging set of recommendations includes a ban on front toe 

grabs and other traction devices, reforms in the equipment and 

usage of a riding crop by jockeys, and, importantly, the adoption of 

the RMTC model rule to eliminate anabolic steroids in the training 

and racing of thoroughbreds. These recommendations have been 

endorsed and supported by a wide cross-section of over 15 leading 

industry organizations. 

We are confident that with this unified support, these initial recommendations will be implemented in a timely fashion. Specifically, we are confident that 2008 will be the last year in which anabolic steroids will be permitted in our sport during training and 

racing. 

In closing, I must emphasize that the Thoroughbred Safety Committee’s work has just begun. Additional recommendations and 

findings will be provided at our annual roundtable conference in 

Saratoga Springs in mid-August, if not before. And the work of the 

committee will continue beyond then as a standing committee of 

the Jockey Club’s board of stewards. 

Specifically, the stewards of the Jockey Club and the members 

of the Thoroughbred Safety Committee are of the belief that the 

elimination of anabolic steroids is only a start. In order to restore 

the trust and confidence in our support that our fans deserve, in 

order to protect our equine athletes, and in order to ensure the 

long-term health of the thoroughbred breed, we must eliminate all 

performance-enhancing drugs from the sport. We are committed to 

seeing this effort through, and as evidenced by the strong show of 

support for our initial set of recommendations, we are confident 

that many other organizations in the industry share our beliefs. 

Thank you for your attention, thank you again for your interest, 

and I will be glad to answer any questions you have. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marzelli follows:] 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Shapiro. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD SHAPIRO, CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA 

HORSERACING BOARD, CALABASAS, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Madam Chairwoman and Members, for three generations my family has been involved in nearly every aspect of this 

sport. I have operated a racetrack, competed as a harness driver, 

and have owned and bred thoroughbreds for racing. Currently I am 

the chairman of the California Horseracing Board. 

I would first like to acknowledge the thousands of dedicated 

horsemen and horsewomen who keep this beautiful sport alive. 

Horseracing is a $26 billion-a-year industry, directly providing 

nearly 400,000 jobs and satisfying careers from the inner city to 

rural America. As one of the first and oldest forms of legalized 

gambling in the United States, horseracing occupies a special place 

in our history and our culture. 

Nevertheless, I have witnessed the changes and accept the challenges that all of us in this industry now address every day. How 

do we help our sport survive and maintain its integrity in this era 

of enormous competition from Indian casinos, card clubs, new lottery games, and the potential spread of legalized Internet gambling? 

We are in the midst of transforming our ivy-covered brick-andmortar racing venues into the flashy Web graphics of live sports 

telecasting and entertainment, entertainment that people bet on. 

We must carefully balance the need to attract newer and younger 

casual fans while satisfying our regular patrons who enjoy our 

game and keep these venues alive. And we must never lose our vision or neglect our responsibility to care for the horses that people 

come to see, the beautiful creatures that make it all possible and 

whose health and welfare must always be our prime concern. 

As the tragic death of Eight Belles after the Kentucky Derby reminded us, horses are fragile, and the game can be cruel. But more 

is in operation here, and the best minds of the industry are closely 

examining why it is the breed appears to be weakening. In 1948, 

Citation won 19 of 20 starts as a 3-year old, including the Triple 

Crown. That same year he beat older horses and won at every distance from 6 furlongs to 2 miles. This year the Kentucky Derby 

was won by a horse that had only raced three times and now may 

race only twice more, if at all. 

According to the Jockey Club, horses raced on average 6.3 times 

in 2007, down from a peak in 1960 of 11.3 times, and this despite 

diagnostic and veterinary medicine that rivals the human care offered at the Nation’s best hospitals and clinics. A long-time track 

vet once testified 20 years ago we had twice the horses and half 

the vets; now we have twice the vets and half the horses. Today 

it is not uncommon for some vets to examine their patients for free 

and charge only for the medications they prescribe, an inherent 

conflict of interest. 

Without a doubt, medication has changed our sport and presented us with profound challenges that threaten the game itself. 

For the sake of speed and for having the fastest horse on the first 

Saturday in May, fewer horses are bred for durability, longevity 

and stamina. We push 2-year-olds onto the track before many can 

17 

handle the rigors of racing. The game has become more horse 

breeding than horseracing. To give you a personal example, my 

family bred and owned the first horse to earn $1 million in California. His name was Native Diver. He raced 81 times and won 34 

stakes races, a record that still stands today 40 years later. Today 

the career of a stakes-caliber horse is considered long if he runs 25 

times before retirement. 

Over the past 40 years, we have traded the time-tested regimen 

of hay, oats, and water for a virtual pharmacopoeia— Lasix, 

Butazolidin, Clenbuterol—that has created, as one commentator recently noted, the chemical horse. After banning it as a performance 

enhancer, racing later permitted the widespread use of 

Clenbuterol, a drug originally marketed to fatten cattle, after its 

proponents claimed nothing else worked as well to clear out a 

horse’s respiratory system. Despite evidence suggesting that this 

drug can alter the muscle mass of the heart, it is commonly used 

in racing. 

And we have created the chemical horse in the name of medicine 

and therapy, when too often it has been done to gain a competitive 

advantage. How else do we explain the widespread use of steroids 

on horses? As Dr. Donald Catlin, whose tests are used by the U.S. 

Olympic Committee, said recently, quote, ‘‘we have seen how anabolic steroids work in humans. It is going to work the same way 

in horses,’’ end quote. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me just note for you that your time is up. 

So if you could just take a minute to wrap up, that would be great. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Clearly there is no place for anabolic steroids. But 

there is one issue larger than all the others. Our industry is a chorus of many voices and not always singing from the same music. 

We have no central governance, no uniform policy rules and laws 

that ensure an even playing field in all respects. Our structure is 

dysfunctional and must become functional. 

I submit we need a national racing charter; one uniform set of 

rules and policies that governs all who choose to enjoy this sport. 

The regulatory scheme to prevent the use of performance-enhancing medication is only as good as the ability to find and detect the 

drugs in use. More research and more scientific study is needed 

now. 

We must modernize the way the game is regulated. I do not believe a national regulatory scheme should be imposed. It is not my 

preference unless it is the last resort. The industry has had decades to find a way for self-uniform governance, and it has not happened. If the industry can’t do it, we should all welcome it. I submit we need a national racing commission. I submit to retain its 

fans, to prosper, racing must act now. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shapiro follows:] 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Van Berg. 

STATEMENT OF JACK VAN BERG, TRAINER, INGLEWOOD, 

CALIFORNIA 

Mr. VAN BERG. Thank you. 

Good morning Chairwoman Schakowsky, all the Members, my 

fellow from Nebraska over there. I hope he didn’t work for me back 

them days. He would think I was mean. 

In order to bring integrity back to the sport of horseracing, the 

first and the most important thing should be to implement the 

most sophisticated drug testing available. It should be funded by 

a small percentage of the simulcast money, approximately oneeighth of 1 percent. Three labs should conduct the testing: one in 

the West, one in the East, one in the Midwest. It would be the responsibility of the trainer or his representative to monitor the collection of the sample after the race. Half of the test sample would 

be immediately frozen and put in a locker that contains two keys, 

one for the lab technician and one for the trainer. If the test—if 

the other half sent in, if the test comes back positive, then they go 

unlock it together to go to one of the other labs and have it taken. 

If the test is positive, then they should face a stiff penalty be imposed on them instead of a slap on the hand. But they have got 

to have the money to do the finest testing that can possibly be 

made. 

As for medication, it would be in the best interest of this grand 

sport and these grand equine athletes to abolish any and all medications. This would mean no race-day thresholds of Lasix, Bute, 

steroids, or any other medication. The present rule permitting the 

use of steroids and other drugs have compromised the integrity of 

horseracing and has been a major factor in attendance and for interest falling to an all-time low. The crowds, most of these racetracks now, you can shoot a cannon through them and can’t hit 

anybody. 

Steroids given to these nonconsenting athletes, the time they 

need to develop, the horse can’t tell you that he doesn’t want to 

take them. Your football players, baseball players, and all people 

can say, no, I don’t take them, that is their privilege. But the horse 

hasn’t got that. Steroids given to young horses can cause an unnatural increase in muscle mass and makes them much heavier 

than their still-maturing bone structure. They just get so heavy, 

and on their young bones that haven’t matured yet, they just can’t 

take it. But as my father once said, fat is the best color in the 

world, so when they go to the auction, the bigger and better and 

bulkier they look, the better they sell. Let the horse develop on his 

own, and the trainer should be enough horseman to know when he 

has matured and ready to proceed in more massive training and 

pick him up. 

As for racing surfaces, they should be a good sandy loam and 

maintained for the soft cushion. I do not think it helps our fans to 

be concerned how fast the race is run. The safety of the horse 

should be the priority, not how fast the track is. On big days most 

racetracks see how fast they can get the track. The surface should 

be maintained at the same depth at all times. 

28 

I would like to thank all of you for listening to the little bit I 

have to say. I will be happy to answer any questions that anybody 

desires. Anything that I can do to help with this great sport and 

the integrity of it and these great athletes I will be happy to. 

Thank you. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Berg follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JACK VAN BERG

In order to bring integrity back to the great sport of horse racing, the first and 

most important act should be to implement the most sophisticated drug testing 

available. It should be funded by a small percentage of the simulcast money: approximately one-eighth of one percent. Three labs should conduct the testing-one in 

the west: one in the east; one in the Midwest. It would be the responsibility of the 

trainer, or his representative to monitor the collection of the sample(s) after the 

race. Half of the test sample should be immediately frozen and put in a locker that 

requires two keys to open. One key should be held by the trainer and another one 

held by the lab technician. The other half of the sample should be sent to the designated lab and tested. If this sample is positive, then the trainers and lab technician would unlock the other half of the sample and send it to one of the other designated labs. If the sample is also positive, then very strict penalties should be imposed. 

As for medication, it would be in the best interest of this grand sport and these 

grand equine athletes to abolish any and all medications. This would mean no race 

day threshold levels of Lasix, Bute, Steroids, or any other medication. The present 

rule permitting the use of steroids and other drugs have comprised the integrity of 

horse racing and has been a major factor in attendance and for interest falling to 

an all time low. Steroids do not give these ‘‘non-consenting’’ athletes the time they 

need to develop and mature. Steroids given to young horses, they cause an unnatural increase in muscle mass and make them heavier than their still maturing bone 

structure can often tolerate. Let the horse develop on his own and the trainer 

should be enough of a horseman to know when he has matured. 

As for racing surfaces, they should be a good sandy loam and maintained for the 

soft cushion. I do not think it helps for fans to be concerned about how fast a race 

is run. The safety of the horse should be the priority and not how fast the track 

is. On big days, most race tracks see how fast they can get the track. The surface 

should be maintained at the same depth at all times. 

I would like to thank everyone for inviting me to testify before the House Committee. The sport of Horse Racing is one of the greatest sports of all times. I will 

always be willing to do whatever I can to bring back the greatness and integrity 

of this great sport. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Moss. 

STATEMENT OF RANDY MOSS, ANALYST, ESPN 

Mr. MOSS. Thank you Vice Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking 

Member Whitfield, and other members of the subcommittee. I am 

not Randy Moss, the football player. I have not owned, bred, 

trained, or ridden racehorses. I am not a veterinarian. But I do 

have 30-plus years around racing in various capacities, and as a 

TV analyst for ESPN and ABC, I think I have a degree of objectivity here. As Fred Thompson might say, I don’t have a dog in this 

hunt, but I think I know when the dog is barking up the wrong 

tree, and I am not afraid to express opinions on how the hunt 

should be conducted. 

And let me add another voice to the chorus you have already 

heard. One problem in this sport that can be dealt with immediately is American racing’s love affair with medication. No other 

country in the world has permitted thoroughbreds to legally race 

29 

with as many drugs in their systems, and many believe the soundness of the breed has been profoundly affected in a negative way. 

The Racing Medication and Testing Consortium that you will hear 

about, the RMTC, is doing admirable work in medication reform, 

but I believe their proposals could be taken one step further by returning American racing to running horses with nothing in their 

systems but good old-fashioned hay, oats and water; no traces of 

Butazolidin, Banamine, steroids or Lasix, turning back the clock on 

the culture of drugs and doing what is right by the Sport of Kings 

and what is right for the horses themselves. 

As Jack said, at the same time racing also needs to create funding mechanisms to streamline and enhance drug testing for illegal 

medications as well. America has its Kentucky Derby, the greatest 

race in the world. We have our Breeder’s Cup, the greatest day of 

racing in the world. But regrettably our racing is also known 

worldwide for its obsession with and reliance on drugs, and this 

must change. 

Another major point I want to stress that has already been mentioned is the dysfunctional manner in which American racing is 

currently being conducted. Imagine if the NFL permitted every 

State to field as many pro football teams as it wanted, to play as 

many games as it wanted all year round, to create different rules 

of play in each State with no National League guidelines to speak 

of. Incredibly enough this is how American racing is currently 

being played. 

Regulatory power is in the hands of 38 racing States with 38 sets 

of rules, 38 different priorities that typically consider only the interest of those respective States and not the overall health of the 

game as a whole. American racing has no central authority with 

the power to do what the NFL or the NBA or Major League Baseball has, to poll its members and to mandate policies with the longterm interest of the sport in mind. 

This not only makes problems in racing notoriously difficult to 

rectify, the sport is cannibalizing itself in the process with cutthroat competition among racetracks that diminishes greatly the 

quality of racing and also puts too much pressure on the horses 

themselves. 

It is true that few in racing, as I have seen, are eager to see Federal involvement. And I would imagine that there are more than 

a few in the Federal Government that don’t really want to be in 

the horseracing business, although, if I recall, Thomas Jefferson 

once had a stable of racehorses that I think was actually on the 

grounds of the White House. 

But more to the point, the States that have been entrusted with 

regulating horseracing have proven unable and unwilling, more importantly, to rectify many of the problems. And however a national 

focus can be accomplished, this issue desperately needs a solution. 

When horseracing had a monopoly as the only legal gambling game 

around, none of this mattered, but today racing faces intense competition for the gambling and entertainment dollar. It needs a single-minded and effective strategy in the marketplace and not 38 

different strategies. 

Thoroughbred racing, in my opinion, is a wonderful sport with a 

rich tradition. Some of that tradition has often meant resistance to 

30 

change. But now with the public outcry, the media scrutiny over 

the deaths of Eight Belles and Barbaro, the prevailing attitude 

within racing, and this is a good sign, is that significant change 

must occur. This is an unprecedented opportunity to set a new 

course in thoroughbred racing. Racing needs to capitalize on it, and 

the public rightly expects nothing less. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moss follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANDY MOSS

Thank you, Vice-Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member Whitfield, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Randy Moss. I work as a horse racing analyst and reporter for ESPN 

and ABC Sports. 

I’m not the football player. I also have never trained racehorses, have never ridden racehorses, and I have had no veterinary training. I have been asked to join 

today’s discussion because I have been close to thoroughbred racing for 30 years, 

as a newspaper reporter, handicapper and freelance writer; through brief stints as 

a racetrack manager, jockey agent and publicist; and for the last decade in television. 

Because of these positions, I have had extensive conversations with trainers, jockeys, owners, breeders, racing executives, racing administrators, and veterinarians 

about a variety of issues, some of which are being discussed here. Just as importantly, I have a regular dialogue with horseplayers, the bettors who are the lifeblood 

of horse racing but whose opinions are too often overlooked. 

As a result of all this, I have developed plenty of my own opinions along the way 

that—for better or worse—I seldom hesitate to express. 

For starters, one opinion is that thoroughbred racing occupies a unique position 

in sports—combining tradition, excitement, pageantry, the majesty of one of the 

world’s most beautiful creatures, and, of course, gambling. 

But in one respect, thoroughbred racing is no different than the NFL, NBA or 

major league baseball: each sport has problems and challenges that must be confronted head-on for that sport to thrive. 

And thoroughbred racing has its share of issues. Some can be easily corrected and 

others can’t. But this is no time for a head-in-sand approach. 

The way I see it, the single biggest dilemma facing this sport is the haphazard 

and dysfunctional manner in which racing is scheduled and administrated. 

Unlike other sports, racing has no ‘‘league office’’ with power to make decisions 

for the long-term best interests of the sport. Instead, racing rules and racing dates 

are set by politically-appointed racing commissioners in each state, whose decisions 

are typically motivated by what they perceive to be best for that particular state 

and often are at odds with the best interests of the sport as a whole. 

Imagine if the NFL were set up to permit each state to field as many pro teams 

as it wanted, play as many games as it wanted all year long, and set its own individual football rules with no enforceable league guidelines. In modern-day America, 

horse racing has always been set up in this fashion. 

During the glory days of racing, when horse racing was practically the only outlet 

for legal gambling, it didn’t matter. In that scenario, racing was almost impossible 

to screw up. 

But now, racing faces intense competition for the gambling and entertainment 

dollar. At a time when the sport desperately needs a single-minded and consistent 

strategy in the marketplace, it has 38 racing states with 38 sets of rules and 38 

different priorities. And that is a recipe for disaster. 

Thoroughbred racing is cannibalizing itself. This Saturday alone racing will be 

conducted at Belmont Park on Long Island; at Charles Town and Mountaineer Park, 

both in West Virginia; at Delaware Park; at Colonial Downs in nearby Virginia; at 

Laurel Park just across the border in Maryland; at Finger Lakes in upstate New 

York; at Monmouth Park in New Jersey; at Penn National, Philadelphia Park, and 

Presque Isle Downs, all in Pennsylvania; and at Suffolk Downs in Massachussetts. 

And these are only the racetracks in the Northeast region of the country. 

Incredibly, each track has determined that this type of scheduling is best for itself 

and its horsemen, even though these tracks are essentially competing for the same 

horses. There aren’t enough good horses to go around, and thus the quality of racing 

at each track is cheapened, average field sizes in the best races are reduced, and 

consequently frustrated horseplayers bet less money. 

31 

At tracks such as Saratoga Race Course, Keeneland Race Course, and Del Mar, 

the sport thrives on short boutique racing seasons that create a festival atmosphere 

and yearly anticipation. Unfortunately, too many other tracks are content to grind 

out a profit through quantity instead of quality, with endless cards of cheap races 

run for a dwindling fan base. Horsemen are complicit in this, as well, since they 

typically resist efforts to reduce racing dates, as do state racing commissioners, who 

are often reluctant to endorse less tax revenue today in exchange for a more positive 

long-range outlook. 

Another effect of these extended racing seasons is the pressure it puts on horses, 

especially in areas of intense track-to-track competition such as the Northeast. In 

a struggle to fill races, racetracks are forced to pressure trainers to run horses more 

frequently than they might otherwise feel comfortable doing. 

Thoroughbred racing in America is proof that there can indeed be too much of a 

good thing. 

Racing’s lack of a powerful central authority is also a primary reason for medication controversies currently engulfing the sport. In the 1970s, American horsemen 

began convincing state authorities that legalization of raceday medications would 

help them run horses more frequently in support of racetracks that were scheduling 

ever-longer racing seasons. Because longer racing seasons pitted tracks against each 

other in intense competition for horses, every state eventually conceded to the easing of medication restrictions so as not to be at a competitive disadvantage with 

other states. Thus America became the only racing country in the world to permit 

raceday use of drugs such as analgesic Butazolidin and diuretic Lasix, which lowers 

blood pressure and is believed by many to reduce the occurance and severity of the 

EIPH (exercise-inducted pulmonary hemorrhaging) that hampers the breathing of 

some racehorses. 

Included among accepted raceday medications were anabolic steroids such as 

Winstrol, which is still legal in 28 racing states. Steroids would eventually gain 

widespread use as an appetite stimulant and to help horses recover more quickly 

from the effects of exercise and put on muscle mass. 

But well before the highly-publicized breakdowns of Barbaro and Eight Belles, 

many within the sport were becoming convinced that lax medication rules were having a negative rather than positive effect on American racing. 

Despite the initial arguments that medication would enable horses to race more 

often, the opposite happened. From 1975 to 2007, average starts per horse per year 

dropped a staggering 62%—from 10.23 to an all-time low of 6.31 last year. 

The vast majority of trainers now complain that their horses have become much 

more fragile. Potential explanations of this perceived increased fragility are numerous and complicated, including the possibilities that medication has weakened the 

gene pool and that commercial breeding practices driven by the marketplace have 

shifted too much toward brilliance rather than durability. 

At the same time, raceday use of Lasix has been allowed to spiral out of control— 

even though the drug is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency because it is allegedly used to mask the presence of more powerful illegal stimulants. Of the 92 

horses entered to run today at Belmont Park, 88 were designated to run on Lasix. 

This is not what was originally intended. 

Now for the good news: the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC) 

was founded in 2002 and under the guidance of Dr. Scot Waterman it has made 

great strides in medication reform and recommended penalties for drug offenders. 

Owners and trainers have become frustrated and confused at the different medication guidelines for various states, and they have gradually begun to embrace uniform rules suggestions developed by the RMTC, even though these rules are rolling 

back raceday medication use considerably. Now, according to Waterman, the primary difference between medication rules in the U.S. and Europe is in the use of 

Lasix and steroids. The RMTC is recommending strong restrictions on steroids, and 

many states are listening. 

One of the holdups, as always, is funding. The RMTC needs continued—and additional—funding to continue its good work. The sport needs to find the revenue to 

consolidate its 18 testing laboratories and enhance testing procedures for items such 

as EPO, or Epogen, which is lesser-known by the public but is perceived to enhance 

performance much more than steroids. 

Also, in the wake of the Eight Belles tragedy, the Thoroughbred Safety Committee 

was formed to tackle the tough issues regarding medication, breeding practices and 

track surfaces. The committee’s initial recommendations issued Tuesday regarding 

steroids, safety whips and proper racing shoes have met with widespread praise, 

and more recommendations are to come. However, the lack of a central racing authority forces the Thoroughbred Safety Committee and other industry leaders to announce that they ‘‘support,’’ ‘‘strongly support,’’ ‘‘endorse,’’ ‘‘urge,’’ ‘‘encourage’’ and 

32 

otherwise beg and plead for the various racing states to adopt the changes. The reason for this language is obvious: the sport has no power to ‘‘require’’ that changes 

be made. In the current industry framework, any state that wishes to thumb its 

nose at such recommendations is free to do so, with no official ramifications. 

After the one-two punches of Barbaro in 2006 and this year’s Kentucky Derby, 

mainstream media began a closer examination of thoroughbred racing. The public 

was concerned about the humaneness of the sport, and too often were appalled at 

what they were seeing. Racing can and must do better. But remember that these 

issues being debated existed long before the demise of Barbaro and Eight Belles, but 

the sport lacked a system as well as a desire to implement needed changes. The 

attention now being focused on these issues, by this committee as well as the public, 

now gives horse racing a rare opportunity to conquer its inefficiencies and pull together in a positive direction. 

And along with the opportunity comes a sober responsibility: this is something the 

sport can ill afford to mess up. 

Some conclusions: 

1) Most in the sport have no desire for federal regulation of horse racing. But 

through whatever means it can be accomplished, thoroughbred racing desperately 

needs a strong central authority with regulatory power to make binding decisions 

necessary for the short- and long-term best interests of the sport. 

2) The explosion of racing dates must be reversed—and in some cases dramatically—perhaps through the formation of a league of world-class U.S. racetracks with 

coordinated racing dates, stakes schedules and simulcasting rates. 

3) The use of Lasix as a raceday medication should be abolished. At the very 

least, no horse that has ever competed with Lasix or any other race-day medication 

should be allowed to propagate as a sire or broodmare in order to restore the integrity of the thoroughbred genetic pool. In addition, all graded stakes races—the designation given to the country’s premier stakes—should be run with no raceday medication. 

4) The Thoroughbred Safety Committee’s recommendations on steroids, whips, 

and proper racing shoes should be immediately instituted. 

5) Nationwide funding mechanisms must be instituted to: ensure the RMTC’s continued beneficial research and recommendations, including development of additional post-race tests for illegal drugs; consolidate the country’s 18 laboratories used 

for post-race testing into one or two ‘‘superlabs’’ with capabilities and resources to 

conduct testing for all prohibited substances; pay for enforcement of drug penalties, 

including legal costs associated with appeals. 

6) The study of racetrack surfaces must continue to determine if synthetic surfaces actually reduce instances of catastrophic injury in thoroughbreds as compared 

to well-maintained dirt surfaces. 

7) Rules should be instituted to hold veterinarians accountable in drug offenses 

as well as the trainers who employ them. 

8) The U.S. should convene a summit with other major racing countries to develop 

regulations that could extend the careers of top racehorses, i.e., a rule requiring all 

sires or broodmares to be at least 5 years of age to conceive a registered thoroughbred racehorse. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Hancock. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR HANCOCK, PRESIDENT, STONE 

FARM, PARIS, KENTUCKY 

Mr. HANCOCK. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Schakowsky, 

and Ranking Member Whitfield and members of the subcommittee. 

I am a fourth-generation horseman, and I have children who are 

interested in this way of life, and I hope to protect it for them, and 

that is why I am here. 

There are many wonderful aspects about the horse business: the 

beautiful farms, the rich tradition, the pageantry, the excitement 

of competition, the thrill of victory. But there are many negatives 

in the industry that I am concerned about, such as inbreeding, 

overbreeding, oversupply, operations on young foals which are not 

required to be divulged, bribing at auctions, and other issues which 

we need to fix ourselves. But my primary worry and the main issue 

33 

which concerns me is the complete lack of uniformity on many 

issues, specifically the permissive medication policies that vary 

from State to State and the catastrophic result that this medication 

is wreaking upon our industry. 

There are 38 racing jurisdictions in the United States, and they 

all have their own rules. As you know from recent stories in the 

news, use of steroids is rampant, and the rules governing its use 

vary from State to State. 

So why are we in this situation, and how can it be remedied? 

What is this thoroughbred industry? It is a conglomeration of different entities, each of which has its own function as well as its 

own agenda. They are the breeders, the owners, the veterinarians, 

the trainers, the jockeys, the racetracks, and all of their affiliated 

organizations. It is a mega agribusiness worth billions of dollars 

that employs thousands of people who are represented by all of 

these separate and different entities. There is TOBA, the Jockey 

Club, the Jockey’s Guild, the NTRA, the Breeder’s Cup, the American Horse Council, the AAEP, the HBPA, the RCI, and the racing 

commissions of 38 different States. They are like fiefdoms, and they 

each have their own Nero-like CEO who envisions himself as the 

savior of racing and usually doesn’t even own a horse. 

As I see it, the real problem with the thoroughbred industry is 

that nobody is in charge. We are a rudderless ship, and the way 

we are going, we will all end up on the rocks. It is impossible for 

us to govern and regulate ourselves. We are simply too fragmented 

and too diverse. Not one of these groups has the power to bring 

uniformity and integrity to our sport. In my opinion, only the Federal Racing Commission or Commissioner can save us from ourselves. 

Congressman Ed Whitfield of Kentucky says that the Horseracing Act of 1978 is a vehicle through which we may remedy this 

situation. Each State can be controlled by the Federal Government, 

because if the State does not comply with the rules, the racing signal can be cut off. For instance, if there is a Federal ban on 

steroids, and the State does not comply, it would lose its signal. 

I have said for years that we must remove drugs from our game. 

In 1960, horses made 11.3 starts a year; last year they made 6.31 

starts. This is a drop of 44 percent, and it is a startling statistic 

which shows that the breed is becoming softer and weaker. This 

leads one to the inescapable conclusion that there will be more frequent and more severe catastrophic injuries in the future, and that 

these will do us irreparable harm irregardless of the track’s surface. It is a vicious cycle. Chemical horses produce chemical babies. 

Performance-enhancing drugs must be banned if we are going to 

survive as an industry and if thoroughbreds are going to survive 

as a robust breed. Believe me, we are in peril. 

I am reminded of a story. There was once a large, fine house, and 

a lot of mice lived in there, and they had lots of cheeses, but the 

owner got a cat, and the mice didn’t know what to do. Somebody 

made the brilliant suggestion that they put a bell on the cat, and 

they thought that was a great idea. Oh, good, we will put a bell 

on the cat. Then somebody came up and said, one of the mice said, 

but who is going to be the one to put the bell on the cat? 

34 

This is our dilemma, ladies and gentlemen. We have no one to 

put the bell on the cat. It is impossible for us. The fiefdoms cannot 

come together, and yet they will violently object to the prospect of 

any infringements upon their domains. Our only hope is the Federal Racing Commissioner or Commission, and I have said this 

since 1990. 

In the early 1980s, Senator Mathias of Maryland spoke to the 

Jockey Club Roundtable in Saratoga and warned us to clean up our 

act, or the government would do it for us. The industry mobilized, 

went to Washington and said we would do it ourselves, and the results speak for themselves. That was 28 years and hundreds of 

committee meetings ago, and things have gotten worse, not better. 

It never happened and never will unless you mandate through the 

Horseracing Act that we have the means to bell the cat. 

Professional basketball, what would it be without a commissioner, without the NBA, or professional football without the NFL, 

or baseball without a commissioner? 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Hancock, your time is expired, so if you could just 

wrap it up. 

Mr. HANCOCK. OK. Let me just close with a point Winston 

Churchill wrote. He said: 

‘‘Who is in charge of the clattering train, 

The carriages creak and the couplets strain. 

And the pace is fast and the points are near, 

But sleep has deadened the driver’s ear. 

And the whistle shrieks through the night in vain, 

For death is in charge of the clattering train.’’ 

Ladies and gentlemen, death is not in charge of our business yet, 

but he is on board. Please give us an engineer. Thank you very 

much. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hancock follows:] 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR HANCOCK

Good morning, honored Members of Congress. 

I am here before you because I am gravely concerned about the future of the 

Thoroughbred industry. I am a fourth generation breeder and owner and I also have 

children who are interested in this way of life. 

There are many wonderful aspects about the horse business—the tradition, the 

pageantry, the competition, and the thrill of victory—but there are many negatives 

in the industry that I am concerned about such as inbreeding, over breeding, oversupply, operations on young foals which are not required to be divulged, bribing at 

auctions, and other issues which we have the means, if not the desire, to rectify. 

But my primary worry and the main issue which concerns me is the complete lack 

of uniformity on many issues; specifically, the permissive medication policies that 

vary from state to state, and the catastrophic results that this medication is wreaking upon our industry. 

There are 38 racing jurisdictions in the United States and they all have their own 

rules. As you know from recent stories in the news, use of steroids is rampant and 

also varies from State to State. 

So, why are we in this situation, and how can it be remedied? What is this Thoroughbred industry? It is a conglomeration of different entities, each of which has 

its own function as well as its own agenda. There are the breeders, the owners, the 

veterinarians, the trainers, the jockeys, the race tracks, and all of their affiliated 

organizations. It is a mega agri-business worth billions of dollars that employs thousands of people who are represented by these separate entities. There is T.O.B.A. 

(Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association), The Jockey Club, the Jockey’s 

Guild, the N.T.R.A. (National Thoroughbred Racing Association), the Breeders’ Cup, 

35 

the American Horse Council, the A.A.E.P (American Association of Equine Practitioners), the H.B.P.A (Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective Association), the R.C.I. 

(Racing Commissioners International), and the racing commissions of 38 different 

racing jurisdictions. All of these fiefdoms have their own Nero-like CEOs, each of 

whom envisions himself as the savior of racing and most of whom don’t even own 

a horse. 

As I see it, the real problem with the Thoroughbred industry is that nobody is 

in charge. We are a rudderless ship, and the way we are going, we will end up on 

the rocks. It is impossible for us to govern and regulate ourselves. We are too fragmented and too diverse. In my opinion, only a Federal racing commission or commissioner can save us from ourselves. 

Congressman Whitfield of Kentucky says that the Horse Racing Act of 1978 is the 

vehicle through which we can remedy the situation. Each state can be controlled 

by the Federal Government because if it does not comply with the rules, its racing 

signal can be cut off. For instance, if there is a Federal ban on steroids and a state 

does not comply, it would lose its signal. 

I have said for years that we must remove drugs from our game. In 1960, horses 

made 11.3 starts per year and in 2007 they made 6.31 starts per year. This is a 

dramatic drop of 44% and is a startling statistic which shows that the breed is becoming softer and weaker. This leads one to the inescapable conclusion that there 

will be more frequent and severe catastrophic injuries in the future. These will do 

us irreparable harm. It is a vicious cycle. Chemical horses produce chemical babies. 

Drugs must be banned if we are going to survive as an industry and if 

thoroughbreds are going to survive as a robust breed. Believe me, we are in peril. 

I am reminded of a story. There was once a large fine house wherein lived a number of mice. There were plenty of scraps of fine cheeses, breads and cakes, and the 

mice flourished. Then the owner decided to get a cat and this cat wreaked havoc 

on the mice and their comfortable lifestyle. All of the mice convened in an effort to 

find a solution to this life-threatening problem, and they decided to put a bell on 

the cat. This was considered to be a wonderful idea and was hailed throughout 

mousedom. Then one of the mice said, ‘‘But who will be the one to put the bell on 

the cat?’’ 

That is our dilemma: we have no one to put the bell on the cat. It is impossible 

for us, and we cannot do it. Our only hope is a federal racing commissioner or commission, and I said this publicly in 1990. 

In the early eighties, Senator Mathias of Maryland spoke to The Jockey Club 

Round Table in Saratoga and warned us to clean up our act or the government 

would do it for us. The industry mobilized and went to Washington and said it 

would do it..and the results speak for themselves. That was twenty eight years and 

hundreds of committee meetings ago. It never happened and will not happen in another 28 years unless you mandate through the Horseracing Act of 1978 that we 

have the means to bell the cat. Where would car racing be without NASCAR, professional basketball without the NBA, professional football without the NFL and AFL, 

or baseball without a commissioner? 

Some years ago, baseball had a problem with steroids and because of a federal 

inquiry it has now cleaned up its act, yet baseball has a commissioner. 

So, why can’t we do something about the drug situation on our own? The answer 

is, there is big money behind these drugs and there is a lot of pressure to continue 

with the status quo. When I worked at the race track in 1966, the only time the 

veterinarian came to the barn was to check the horse on race day or if he was sick. 

Now, they are there every day, and veterinary bills for owners can run over 

$1,000.00 a month on a single horse. Last year, I told a veterinarian that I did not 

want my horses to get any medication unless they were sick and he replied, ‘‘You 

want to win races, don’t you Arthur?’’ 

Now I don’t mean to say that all race track veterinarians are bad people and I 

don’t in any way mean to disparage them. I respect them. The drugs they give a 

horse are for the most part legal, although there are some who will use the masking 

power of legal drugs to mask other more sinister and illegal substances. For instance, cobra venom was recently discovered in the possession of a trainer and it 

was given to him by his veterinarian. If evil can exist, it will. If evil is permitted, 

it will prevail. America, by the way, is the only nation on this planet which permits 

the use of most of these medications. Steroids are banned in every other country. 

The drug issue is destroying public confidence as well as the breed. People wonder 

why we haven’t had a Triple Crown winner since the seventies. Well, when a horse 

gets Lasix in the Kentucky Derby and loses 30 to 40 pounds and the same thing 

happens in the Preakness 2 weeks later, how can he be at full strength for the Belmont where he gets it again; all of this in the span of 5 weeks, and Lasix is not 

36 

the only drug the horse gets. He may get steroids and many other drugs, like 

butazolidin. 

So, I am convinced and terrified that we are losing our industry, the public confidence, and the American breed called the Thoroughbred. The horse is the star. He 

is our show, and look what we are doing to him. Please help us right these wrongs. 

Let us remember that the definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over 

and over again expecting different results. Let us have zero tolerance and a national 

lab for testing. Any expense to create integrity and save the breed would be cheap. 

Ben Johnson said that nothing can be great unless it is right. Please help us make 

horse racing right and great again. The very survival of our industry is at stake 

here, ladies and gentlemen. 

I would like to close with a poem written by the late Winston Churchill. 

‘‘Who is in charge of the clattering train, 

The carriages creak and couplets strain. 

And the pace is fast and the points are near, 

But sleep has deadened the driver’s ear. 

And the whistle shrieks through the night in vain, 

For death is in charge of the clattering train.’’ 

Thank you for listening to me. Your time and efforts are deeply appreciated and 

it has been a privilege and honor for me to appear before you. 

Thank you, and good day. 

Mr. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Jackson. 

STATEMENT OF JESS STONESTREET JACKSON, STONESTREET 

FARM, GEYSERVILLE, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. JACKSON. Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member Whitfield, members of the committee, as you know, I am an advocate 

for reform, probably one of the more outspoken, and the best of the 

advocates for reform are sitting here at this table. I commend you 

on your wisdom in choosing to open the dialogue and deal with the 

problem. 

I am Jess Jackson, proprietor of a winery called Kendall Jackson, 

but more recently returned to thoroughbred racing. I own 

Stonestreet Farms, with farms in Kentucky, Florida, and California. I have stables. One of the 60 horses we are training and 

running right now is Curlin, the world champion. I am very proud 

of him. Curlin represents a horse that can run without drugs, not 

that he didn’t in the past, but we changed that, and when he went 

to Dubai, he won without drugs. Dubai does not tolerate drugs. 

We appreciate the opportunity, my family, to address you today. 

I am an eighth-generation horseman. My great-great-grandfather 

ran the King Ranch after Captain King died in Texas. I have been 

around horses since I was 6 years old, and I saw Sea Biscuit run 

when I was 9 years old. I have seen a lot. I was one of the voices 

to oppose Bute when it came in in the 1950s and 1960s. 

The vast majority of the people in our business are honest, hardworking and wish that the change in the industry would happen. 

They have no leadership. None. Mr. Hancock explained that to you. 

We have so many diverse, disparate princedoms and fiefdoms in 

the industry that we can’t organize. If you raise a point on one industry, somebody else will oppose it. 

I believe that in Congress, if you raise amendments or bring 

leadership, you will have opposition from parts of the industry. 

That always happens. We always say we can do it ourselves. We 

always say we can plan. We need to study it more. We are experts 

at delay. We never get it done. We need leadership and help. 

37 

Your concerns are very well founded. I believe we need Congress 

to take an active role in two specific areas immediately. First, on 

drugs: ban them. For centuries horses ran without drugs. Drugs 

are not needed to run thoroughbred horses. The competition between trainers, when one is convinced by a veterinarian to enhance 

the performance of his horse, the others want to have a fair chance 

against that competition, and so it is like a plague, it spreads. 

We have to also discipline the veterinarians who supply the 

drugs. Why do we arrest the user and discipline him with a slap 

on the hand when the real problem comes from the seller? 

We have to deal with it bluntly. I am against drugs. We need 

uniform standards. We need new laboratories to test. And we need 

zero tolerance of drugs. 

Again, for centuries, horses ran without drugs. We don’t need 

Lasix. We don’t need Bute. We certainly don’t need steroids or 

enhancers. We don’t even need coffee. The horse can run. 

And he runs naturally. He wants to run. That magnificent animal lives to run. Just watch a young foal in the field about sundown when he is getting ready for bed. The last thing he does is 

run madly around the entire pasture. 

Drugs mask other drugs. Don’t think that an aspirin might not 

mask another designer drug. It can; we don’t know. We can’t keep 

up our science with enough advancement to answer all of the designer drugs that they are creating out there for humans as well 

as horses. 

And the ethics of dealing with an animal shows the ethics of the 

human. We need to have ethics, honesty, and trust in this industry. 

My second point is that Congress should eliminate two words in 

the Interstate Horse Racing Act. As presently written, the IHA provides that a host racing association must have an agreement with 

the, quote, ‘‘horsemen’s group,’’ which is defined as the group which 

represents the majority of owners and trainers. Take out those two 

words, ‘‘and trainers.’’ 

The trainers work for owners. Jockeys work for owners. The 

horse is owned by the owners. The owners are the lifeblood of the 

industry. Why give the power to an agent to commit the owners? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me just call to your attention your time 

is up. So if you could wrap up, we would appreciate it. 

Mr. JACKSON. All right, well, OK. 

The IHA needs to be amended; it truly does. The trainer is under 

the thumb of the track, to get his gait, to get his stall, to get his 

stable. He is not the qualified agent for the owners. We need a national organization to represent the owners like any number of 

other—ASCAP, for instance, to deal with all of the various tracks. 

And let the owners—if you take those two out, the owners will 

unite themselves. You won’t need a bureaucracy to run it. The TLC 

in California, the horse group in Ohio, Florida, Texas, New York, 

they will come together. They fear antitrust action, and you might 

pay attention to that as well. But the point is that they will voluntarily cure all these problems and organize if you just let them and 

take away the fear that, if they do organize, they are going to be 

litigated. That is a serious concern. 

We need to fix the broken economic model. But the industry can 

do that if you adjust that. 

38 

Now, you need to study breeding and other issues. It is a very 

serious thing. We have inbred impurities. We concentrate speed instead of the upper body. We look for an Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 

upper body and then we look for Don Knotts’s legs and knees. We 

don’t need all of the inbreeding we have. We need outcrossing. I go 

to Argentina to buy horses, I go to Germany to buy horses, because 

they have stronger bones and better knees. 

And we need a league and a commissioner. 

I will wrap it up: it is a tragedy these issues are before you 

today. None of these ideas are new. We have been debating them 

for almost my entire life; I am 78 years old. We need action. Please, 

Congress, help us. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JESS STONESTREET JACKSON

SUMMARY

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I welcome congressional help and 

there are two areas that require immediate action: first, a broken business model 

must be fixed and second, drug use and other safety standards need to be addressed. 

These problems have common root causes: The lack of a national and responsible 

horse owners’ organization; the lack of transparency in industry practices; the lack 

of uniform standards; and most importantly, the lack of accountability and enforceability. All of which can be corrected by an effective horse owners’ organization. It 

is clear to me that most of the industry’s present ills stem from the fact that we 

are a national, or international, sport, that has no competent central regulating 

body or federal authority mandating uniformity in the United States. While one or 

more of the present organizations may, with the best of intentions, ‘‘study’’ various 

issues, few have the authority and none enforce uniform national standards. Some 

of these issues have been studied, as with the banning of performance altering 

drugs, for decades without action. As this Committee properly senses, we need less 

STUDYING and more DOING. 

While I do not favor more federal regulation or bureaucracy, I do think that a 

carefully crafted charter, or other vehicle, for a federal horse racing association (representing horse owners) is urgently needed to ensure better treatment for the horses 

and enhance the revenues for both the tracks and the horse and improve the integrity and safety of the sport. 

TESTIMONY

Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member Whitfield and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning. My name is Jess Jackson. I am here today because of my 

lifelong passion for the sport of thoroughbred racing and breeding and my role as 

a relative newcomer to thoroughbred ownership. My life experiences include many 

vocations. I was a law enforcement officer, a practicing attorney, and a member for 

the Center for Democracy. I am also the founder of Kendall-Jackson Winery. At 

heart, I am a farmer. 

I appreciate the opportunity to address you today on matters of importance concerning the sport and business of thoroughbred racing. While we are all deeply saddened that the tragic injuries to horses such as Barbaro and Eight Belles may be 

the impetus for this hearing, I believe most owners of horses nationwide, including 

a large silent majority connected to thoroughbreds, are very encouraged that Congress is holding this hearing today. We need Congress to take an active interest in 

assuring the integrity, safety, and economic viability of this magnificent sport. 

My passion for horses and the sport of horse racing dates back more than seven 

decades. As a boy growing up in California, I had the privilege to watch Seabiscuit— 

one of the most popular thoroughbreds of all time—run in a race not too far from 

my home. That memory has stayed with me all these years, and helped forge a 

strong affection for horses and a deep appreciation of their beauty, power, elegance, 

and athleticism. 

39 

I am a life-long fan of thoroughbred racing. Through hard work and perhaps a 

fair dose of good luck, I have found myself in a position to pursue my passion for 

thoroughbred horses as more than just a fan. I am 78 years old. I had hopes to ease 

into my retirement but instead, a few years ago, my family and I returned to raising 

and racing horses which led to the establishment of Stonestreet Stables. I wanted 

to join and participate in a great agriculture industry whose vast majority are honest, hardworking people producing what was and can again be a top sport and entertainment industry. 

Today, Stonestreet Farm owns over 100 broodmares and their foals, and our 

Stonestreet Stables currently races and trains 60 or so thoroughbred horses. Among 

them is Curlin, in whom we own an 80% interest. Curlin is an amazing horse. In 

2007 he was Horse of the Year, placed in all the Triple Crown races and won the 

Breeders Cup. He won the Dubai World Cup in March and is ranked as the number 

one thoroughbred in the world. This past weekend, at Churchill Downs, he raced 

to first place to the applause of thousands of spectators. 

The Committee’s concern about the health and welfare of thoroughbred horses, as 

well as the overall status of the horse racing industry, is very well-founded. As excited as my family is about getting into the thoroughbred racing arena, and about 

the enormous success of Curlin, our enthusiasm has been tempered by the realization that the sport of thoroughbred breeding and racing faces serious challenges 

that imperil its future in America. 

There are two areas that require immediate action: first, a broken business model 

and second, drug use and other safety standards. 

A BROKEN BUSINESS MODEL 

A Commissioner and a horse owner-based governing body are urgently needed. It 

is the only way to fix the industry’s broken business model. The absence of a legitimate national governing body with federally-sanctioned authority to make and enforce consistent rules, regulations and standards is desperately needed. Correspondingly, we need Congress’ support to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) in 

order to immediately permit those who are the real investors, the real parties in 

interest, race horse owners, to organize. For instance, the thoroughbred horse owners provide all the capital for the horses that race, but are unable to organize for 

fear of anti-trust litigation. An immediate example is the lawsuit filed by Churchill 

Downs against the Kentucky and Florida horse owners’ groups. If permitted to organize through their respective state thoroughbred owners groups, private non-federal 

entities, and participate in and help make the complex business decisions in today’s 

marketplace, revised integrity and economic models would soon be enacted nationally. To show the economic advantages of such amendments to the IHA I have attached to my testimony an article by Fred Pope entitled, ‘‘Change the Law—Engage 

Racehorse Owners.’’ In this article, Mr. Pope describes in detail the economic plight 

of the thoroughbred racing industry. In pertinent contrast, The Jockey Club in England is an effective private organization that sets the rules and enforces them. In 

the United States, our Jockey Club acts as a mere registry of birth and ownership 

transfer. If horse racing is to regain the immense popularity it historically proved, 

we, the horse owners, must be permitted to organize and to have a league of our 

own. While such a league may be either private or public, to succeed it is clear that 

we will need your help—the right to organize safely from spurious anti-trust litigation. And as thoroughbred owners we must be permitted to participate at the negotiations between the tracks, the off track betting industry and the TV betting media 

(advance deposit wagering or ADWs). 

In the absence of a healthy new economic model, the most promising source of 

return on a horse owner’s investment increasingly comes from breeding their horses. 

Current estimates are that horse owners in racing invest over $4.3 billion a year 

for the chance to compete for approximately $1.1 billion in purses. The result is that 

most horses’ racing careers are geared toward maximizing, at all costs, the horses’ 

early retirement potential for a successful breeding career, and not continuation of 

racing. In practical terms it means we are racing juvenile horses too soon and racing 

2-year-old horses before their bones and joints are fully developed should end. Moreover, racing 2- and 3-year-olds can result in serious career ending injuries as witnessed on national TV with Barbaro, Eight Belles and others. There is every incentive to compress horses’ racing careers, racing them to young and retiring them too 

soon, in order to get them to stud sooner and avoid the risk of breakdown. I join 

with others including many prominent and successful trainers who urge that horses 

be barred from racing until they are much older. 

When we decided to race Curlin as a 4-year-old, it astounded many in the industry that we would put aside a year’s breeding revenue of about 15 million dollars, 

40 

an amount far greater than we could earn on the track, run the risk of loss or injury 

from racing and incur the multi-million dollar cost of insuring Curlin for racing. But 

my family and I wanted to give the industry a boost and share Curlin’s speed, brilliance and stamina with the fans. In defining Curlin we personally risk his serious 

injury and even his death. Since making that decision, we have been overwhelmed 

with congratulations and support from fans and owners around the world. Curlin 

continues to earn his legacy as an American champion for the ages, bringing pride 

and good will both to the industry and our country, both here and abroad. Most importantly, his stamina, power, durability, and speed have proven the value of racing 

stronger and more experienced horses, and (so far) has validated our decision. His 

ultimate impacts may be to propagate his DNA through his progeny for a sturdier 

breed and serve as an example for racing older horses. 

The fans are important to me and to the industry. Let’s look at racing for a moment from their point of view. Purses have dwindled to the point where fewer owners enter their horses in any but the most lucrative venues. With the advent of offtrack betting and fewer horses racing and smaller gates and purses, many tracks 

do not have the financial resources to maintain much less expand their facilities, 

which results in a less enjoyable and less friendly family and social experience for 

spectators. Contrast this to Hollywood or Del Mar in the days of Bing Crosby. 

We need an open and frank dialogue about the gaming side of our sport. While 

betting exists in all sports, there is no doubt that it has corroded our industry more 

than others. If you go to any track in America today, the front and the back of the 

house are in deteriorating conditions. Why? Because off-track betting is getting 

more money then the tracks themselves which in turn prevents the tracks from becoming state of the art facilities both for the horses and the fans. (See Mr. Pope’s 

article). It is also a disincentive for tracks to put on an entertaining live show for 

its spectators. Even if they could afford to do it, why should host tracks spend 

money on live racing or greater purses when the lion’s share of gaming revenue is 

diverted from the tracks and horses who put on the show (and risk their capital) 

to mostly benefit off-track revenue which does little to enhance track or horse revenue. Last year, racehorse owners lost out on about $540 million purse accounts due 

to off-track wages. That is double the amount of annual prize money on the Professional Golf Association (PGA) tour. I personally admire the PGA and the Association 

of Tennis Professionals (ATP) as private models which uphold both the integrity and 

financial viability of their respective sports and their participants. We need a better 

business model and we need it now. Horseracing may not survive without one. 

THE HORSE INDUSTRY’S DRUG AND SAFETY PROBLEMS 

a. We Must Ban Improper Use of Drugs 

Speaking bluntly, the horse industry has a drug problem. We must replace the 

existing patchwork of state standards with a uniform national standard that is in 

accord with international, ZERO-TOLERANCE rules. Congress should start by banning steroids immediately, at any level, for horses in competition. Lasix and Bute 

should be banned as well—now—and should have been banned 50 years ago. These 

drugs mask pain and, worse, may mask designer drugs including hormones and 

steroids, all of which should be banned if they affect the track performance or physical appearances of a horse at public auction or private sale. The very fact that there 

is a debate about steroid use in the Triple Crown, regardless of the merits, is damaging to, and casts a shadow over racing. If one veterinarian (prospering from its 

sale) convinces one trainer to use a drug other trainers may feel compelled to do 

likewise in order maintain a ‘‘level playing field.’’ But does the horse have a say? 

It is essential to conform to international standards and ban these drugs now for 

other than true medicinal use. No horse entering racing should have one iota or 

trace of artificial steroids, hormones, or drugs. 

Medication testing must be centralized and independent, possibly using the 

USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) model. Infractions must be adjudicated 

swiftly and decisively. Punishments must be severe, predictable and uniform. Currently, most violations go to state-run administrative law proceedings which can 

take years to resolve. It is unbelievable to me that trainers who have been permanently barred in other international racing venues are merely ‘‘suspended’’ for 3 

months in the United States for illegal drug use, such as Cobra venom! 

b. We Must Make Racing Safer For Horses 

The state of the breed is not what it used to be. To put it in simple terms, the 

industry focuses excessively on breeding horses for early, brilliant speed at relatively short distances. Today, too many breeders end up producing heavily conformed upper body muscled horses with relatively fragile legs (Barbaro) and feet 

(Big Brown). The current structure of the graded stakes races in the United States 

41 

encourages breeding this type of horse, and indeed practically demands it. We can 

improve the breed by mandating transparency in medical histories, revising the racing calendar and understanding track surfaces’ effect on equine health. 

Due to the absence of transparency about the frequency and cause of racing related injuries as well as the lack of consistent access to medical records, conscientious breeders do not have sufficient information available to make fully informed 

breeding decisions. The careers of racing horses are too short to provide much of 

a racing history on which to base predictions of the performance of their offspring. 

All contributing to the weakening of the breed. 

The larger problem is that obtaining accurate medical records for horses is extremely difficult. Most jurisdictions do not adequately regulate medical record keeping for horses and in some states (including California) medical records belong to 

the person who paid the veterinarian and are not available to the new buyer/owner. 

Worse, an uninformed buyer may race a horse with an increased risk of injury or 

death. Just as Google is moving to establish a confidential, centralized, online database for human medical records, so should there be a repository of accurate horse 

medical records and ownership. Also, maintenance of accurate medical and ownership records available to the industry and all its prospective owners and breeders 

of the horses during both sale and racing is essential. Through ownership records 

the physical and medical history of equine can be verified. True ownership records 

also would help prevent fraud occurring at auctions and private sales where wrongdoers can falsify bids and documents of a horse’s prior sale and medical histories. 

It is important at sale to provide a potential purchaser with an accurate picture of 

the horse and to disclose potential health problems. For example, chronic steroid 

use, in addition to creating health risks to horses, can cause irreparable fertility 

damage, and is certainly information that is material to a high dollar stallion purchase deal and his fertility performance as a stallion. 

Similarly, the racing calendar needs to be revised in the best interest of the horse 

and coordinated across tracks and states. A national racing commissioner could do 

this. A league of racing could restore excitement and marketing to this noble sport. 

One option is have the Triple Crown spread out with the Kentucky Derby on the 

first Saturday in May, the Preakness the first Saturday in June, and the Belmont 

the first Saturday in July. This will promote rivalries, give the horses more rest and 

recovery time between races and allow for a better approach towards marketing the 

sport. The Triple Crown is, rightfully, a difficult achievement and I am not advocating that the path be made easier simply because we have not had a Triple Crown 

winner in decades. However, as the Triple Crown currently stands, these magnificent ‘‘too young’’ horses must overcome the gauntlet-like nature of the grueling 

schedule rather than the level of competition. 

We also need to place the emphasis back on the competition between more mature 

older horses to reduce juvenile injuries, breakdowns, and catastrophic deaths. Accordingly the Triple Crown races could be limited to 4-year-olds. Today these races 

effectively mark the end of the viable racing career of high-value successful, but 

young race horses. Looking at the schedule of graded stakes, there are relatively few 

races for horses older than 3 years and the disparity in earning potential between 

what 4-year-olds and older horses can make at the racetrack and what they may 

earn in the breeding sheds generally forces most horses into retirement at or before 

the end of their third year of age. Curlin and other 4 year and older horses are having trouble finding sufficient races in which to run in the U.S. and must go overseas 

for races with purses three to ten times higher than current purses in the United 

States. 

Moving the age of the participants up to 4 would permit horses to develop at a 

more reasonable pace before being pointed towards the Triple Crown and allow for 

more seasoning and conditioning. The result would be stronger, healthier and, more 

skilled equine athletes. This will have the additional effect of lengthening the racing 

careers—and starts—for almost all thoroughbreds, which then gives a prospective 

breeder more information about the soundness, ability, strengths and weaknesses 

in a given horse or bloodline which would tend to help breeder’s avoid inbreeding 

genetic defects thus strengthening the breed. 

As it stands now, the racing careers of sire prospects are so short that it is difficult to reasonably predict the long term genetic characteristics of their prospective 

progeny. I am told a famous, old time breeder long ago said he would not breed a 

horse less then 4-years-old and had not run at least fifteen races. In the last thirty 

years the total number of races a typical thoroughbred runs before retirement has 

been reduced from over twenty to about six. 

Finally, we need to better understand the effect of track surfaces on race horses. 

While we are in favor of whatever track is safest for horse and rider, we are also 

wary that by focusing on developing safer track surfaces we may ignore that we now 

42 

have a less durable breed. We must do both: study race surfaces and improve durability genetics. The thoroughbred has raced on dirt and grass for centuries. Is the 

current lack of stamina and bone due to historic racing surfaces or more likely to 

weak inbreeding for speed? We have handsome upper bodies but fragile legs. Both 

bone and sinew have degraded. We should focus on the cause (breeding weakness) 

not merely a racing surface. The root problem should be fixed—breed more durable 

horses. 

CONCLUSION 

All of all these problems have common root causes: the lack of a responsible horse 

owners’ national organization; the lack of transparency in industry practices; the 

lack of uniform standards; and, most importantly, the lack of accountability and enforceability can all be corrected by an effective horse owners’ organization. Through 

that new founded organization, horse owners must change a poor business model 

eliminate ‘‘drugs and thugs’’ and restore safety. It is clear to me that most of the 

industry’s present ills stem from the fact that we are a national, or international, 

sport, that has no competent central regulating body or federal authority mandating 

uniformity in the United States. Individual states each have their own regulations 

that differ, and there are multiple and inept trade groups currently existing that 

represent limited elements of the industry, mostly the breeders, (the sellers) not the 

owners (the buyers). But unlike every other major sport, we have no organization 

or entity that effectively regulates and markets the sport. While one or more of the 

present organizations may, with the best of intentions, ‘‘study’’ various issues, few 

have the authority and none enforce uniform national standards. Some of these 

issues have been studied, as with the banning of performance altering drugs, for 

decades without action. As this Committee properly senses, we need less STUDYING and more DOING. 

I do not favor more federal regulation or bureaucracy. Where possible, I do think 

that a carefully crafted amendment to charter a federal horse racing association 

(representing horse owners) is urgently needed to ensure better treatment for the 

horses and enhance the revenues for both the tracks and the horse and improve the 

integrity and safety of the sport. A national organization would also overcome the 

most common objection to reform at the state level—namely, that reform in any one 

state will simply drive owners, breeders and business to other more lenient state 

jurisdictions. 

If we are to restore thoroughbred racing to its longstanding position as a cherished national pastime, we must start by protecting the health and dignity of the 

wonderful athletes that delight and thrill us all. Establishing a meaningful governing body with authority to set and enforce standards in the interest of all stakeholders is the best way to accomplish this most worthy goal. We must also return 

the sport to our buyers (the owners of the horse) and to our racing fans (our ultimate entertainment consumers). As in any sport the both the participants and the 

fans are the backbone of the industry. And in the end, if we can accomplish these 

noble objectives, we will have properly honored the great legacies of true heroes 

such as Man o’ War and Seabiscuit. 

Thank you for the honor and the opportunity to testify today. 

# # # 

CHANGE THE LAW—ENGAGE RACEHORSE OWNERS

AMENDING THE INTERSTATE HORSERACING ACT WILL ENGAGE

RACEHORSE OWNERS

BY FRED A. POPE

REVISED JUNE 12, 2008 

In the Kentucky Derby, the brave filly Eight Belles became classic-placed and 

then a few minutes later was put down on national television. Every breakdown 

hurts, however the Kentucky Derby is different. Throughout the world not just racing fans, but families, gather around televisions on the first Saturday in May. It 

is Thoroughbred racing’s opportunity to connect. It is the special day. 

In my opinion, racing dodged a bullet on Derby day because had the filly gone 

down a few seconds earlier, under urging at full speed, we would have faced a problem on a different level. Horrific images of such a spill would have been burned into 

43 

the memories of millions of people watching live and then replayed again and again. 

The risk is there every time the race is run. 

In 1987, Alysheba’s near fall in the stretch of the Derby raised the question: ‘‘How 

can we make Thoroughbred racing strong enough to withstand such a disastrous 

event?’’ 

Whether working on a political campaign or a brand of peanut butter, that’s how 

marketing people think because we know bad things happen and you either build 

an image strong enough to handle it, or risk having your product disappear. 

The safety issue is being addressed; but, it isn’t the reason our sport is in crisis 

and fixing it will not provide the answer to how can we make racing strong enough 

to insure its future. 

THE PUBLIC GETS IT

In the blame game, the industry knows the Derby breakdown is complicated. But 

the public takes a more direct view. The public knows racehorse owners are to 

blame. It is the racehorse owners’ game and they are responsible for their horses. 

That’s the way the world works. The public gets it. 

The problem is racehorse owners don’t get it. Racehorse owners, against all reason, have given control of their sport over to the tracks and seem to take no responsibility for what happens to it. You can own a racehorse and your only responsibility 

is to pay the bills. 

We have a long list of national organizations, but nowhere among them is a national Racehorse Owners Association (ROA). Several national organizations say they 

speak for racehorse owners, however those organizations are actually controlled by 

breeders, tracks or trainers. It seems everyone in our industry wants to speak for 

racehorse owners, except racehorse owners. 

While there many stakeholders in the Thoroughbred industry, the racing segment 

has only two stakeholders: racehorse owners and track owners. 

Sports’ marketing is successful when the players, or owners of the talent, acquire 

the rights of the facilities where they play, then package and present the sport to 

the public. 

Every sport operates that way except ours. In Thoroughbred racing, the owners 

of the talent (racehorse owners) give away their rights to the facility (racetrack) 

where they race. 

It is the structural flaw that dooms the sport. When people complain there is no 

one in charge, how could there be someone in charge? Think about it. 

At one time, the golf courses controlled professional golf tournaments. The golf 

courses jerked the players around the country for low purses and low attendance. 

Then the professional golfers engaged, pooled their rights and adopted the major 

league model for the PGA Tour. The PGA Tour then acquired the image rights of 

the golf courses and today it packages and presents a great schedule for high purses 

and high attendance. If, God forbid, a golf shot killed a person in one of their events, 

the PGA Tour will be strong enough to survive it. 

As many of you know, I am a proponent of racehorse owners forming a major 

league like the PGA Tour. Yes, a major league would do the things everyone wants 

for the sport of Thoroughbred racing. It would have someone in charge. It would 

have all rights pooled into the proven business model. It would grow the sport and 

make it strong. However, until that happens, there is an urgent need to engage 

racehorse owners right now. 

HOW CAN WE ENGAGE RACEHORSE OWNERS? 

Racehorse owners’ purse money is a good place to start. This year about $540 million is leaking out of purse accounts that are funded by off-track wagers. To put 

that amount of money into perspective, $540 million is twice the money in all stakes 

races in North America. It is also double the annual prize money on the PGA Tour. 

A change in the off-track business model is needed now to stop this money from 

leaking out and racehorse owners must engage to change it. 

The fastest way to get racehorse owners to engage in the business is to change 

one word in the Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) into two words. Currently under 

the law, simulcast approval requires ‘‘horsemen’’, which are defined in the law as 

owners and trainers. Changing from the term ‘‘horsemen’’ to ‘‘racehorse owners’’ 

with no definition required will immediately engage racehorse owners in their own 

sport. 

When interstate simulcasting started in 1978, the approval of ‘‘horsemen’’ at the 

host track and at the receiving track was a pretty basic decision. Today, off-track 

distribution is a sophisticated business venturing far beyond the borders of tracks. 

44 

It is doubtful anyone is going to say trainers are better than racehorse owners to 

make the complex business decisions needed today. 

A simple amendment to the IHA will engage racehorse owners, some might say 

bring them kicking and screaming, into the business of Thoroughbred racing. It is 

the racehorse owners’ game and they have both the right and the responsibility for 

simulcast approval. 

SIMULCASTING CHANGED THE BUSINESS MODEL OF RACING

The business model for pari-mutuel wagering started with a deal between the two 

stakeholders: the tracks and the racehorse owners. With each stakeholder having 

a significant investment in putting on the show, they agreed to a 50-50 split of the 

after tax takeout from wagers. The 50-50 split of on-track wagers netted and equal 

8% into the purse account and 8% to the host track putting on the show. 

The business model for on-track wagers has stayed the same; however, 

simulcasting changed the business model for off-track wagers. Simulcasting has 

grown from nothing to where about 90% of all racing handle is made off-track today. 

Each year as the percentage of handle from off-track wagering increases, the percentage of off-track wagers going into purses has decreased from 8% to about 4% 

today. Those 4 percentage points matter. 

Why is this $540 million (4% of $13.5 billion) in off-track wagering leaking out 

of Thoroughbred purses? The culprit is an insane business scheme that the small 

tracks and resident horsemen devised, giving the lion’s share of the money (18%) 

to ‘‘where the bet is made’’, instead of ‘‘where the show is produced’’ (3%). 

A direct analogy to this off-track model would be if a convenience store took the 

lion’s share of a lottery ticket sale because the store punched in the numbers and 

sold the ticket. 

In the real world, the Lottery organization pays the convenience stores only 5% 

for punching in the numbers and taking the Lottery ‘‘bet’’. (YouBet.com has said 

they can make a profit with just 5% of the off-track wager.) If racehorse owners 

change to a business model where the bet takers receive 5% for taking off-track wagers, there will be little or no leakage of racehorse owners’ purse money. 

Before simulcasting, each track lived and died based upon its ability to put on 

a good show and attract a large crowd of bettors. The transient racehorse owners 

were drawn to the tracks with rich purses derived from the 50-50 split from wagers. 

The bigger markets delivered high attendance and with the high purses they offered, the largest number of people got to see the best horses race. It is a business 

model that makes sense and it worked well for the sport. 

The introduction of simulcasting in 1978 could have taken Thoroughbred racing 

to the next level by dramatically increasing distribution of our best racing products. 

Purses at the tracks putting on the show in our biggest markets would have soared 

to heights unimaginable today. That’s the way the world works and it could have 

worked that way for Thoroughbred racing. 

When simulcasting started, ‘‘where the bet was made’’ was either at a host track 

or a receiving track. The receiving tracks and horsemen seemed to have the philosophy ‘‘we own our customers and if they are going to bet on races at other tracks, 

we are going to get the lion’s share from their bets’’. While that was true in the 

beginning, the Internet and mobile technology has shown us no one owns the consumer today. Consumers today are free and mobile. 

There is a need to pay taxes to the state where the bet is made and just like purchases made on the Internet, we can continue paying the state their tax on the bet. 

All the while, we can be changing to an off-track business model that gives the lion’s 

share ‘‘where the show is produced’’. 

‘‘WHERE THE BET IS MADE’’ IS KILLING THE SPORT

The tracks and horsemen are so addicted to the large margin they make on imported races (about 18%, versus the 3% going to the host track) that it has blinded 

them to the amount leaking out of the sport through other bet takers. The only way 

to bring change is for racehorse owners to engage in the business and establish a 

new off-track model that will allow the host track to make a profit and ensure a 

fair amount goes into purses. 

It isn’t just the money, it is the most basic question for racehorse owners: Are we 

in the business of putting on a racing show, or are we in the business of making 

money on someone else’s show? Trying to have it both ways isn’t working. 

Racehorse owners, by not engaging, have put the tracks into the position of planning for a future where there is no incentive to grow live racing and the sport. The 

current incentive is for the tracks to convert into facilities where the live racing 

45 

show is subservient to betting on other racetracks’ races and other gambling, i.e. 

the new Gulfstream Park. 

Today, one of the tracks benefiting the most from ‘‘where the bet is made’’ is 

Keeneland, with only 30 days of live racing, but 11 months of taking the lion’s share 

from imported races. This allows their limited live race days to benefit with large 

purses, but as much as we like Keeneland racing, is that what we want? Do we 

want our national sport to be downsized to a few weeks of festival racing? 

Keeneland is not to blame for the off-track business model and they have tried 

many times to raise the off-track price on their quality races. But, as we dig deeper 

into this mess, it is clear that the current model rewards the tracks with the least 

live racing. 

I favor a Major League structure within the sport of Thoroughbred racing. However, we also need a strong program of minor league racing, a feeder-system if you 

will. We need to continue having 35,000 foals born each year to give us the best 

6,000 to race at the highest level. 

Legal gambling makes lower levels of Thoroughbred racing economically viable, 

but the lower levels are not viable as a sport. Every sport has found they need a 

major league structure to package and present the highest level of their sport as 

the beacon that connects with the public. 

BREEDERS SHOULD URGE RACEHORSE OWNERS TO ENGAGE

Although commercial breeders are not one of the two stakeholders in the racing 

segment, they have great interest in the sport. Breeders should be very concerned 

about the $540 million dollars leaking out of purses, because racehorse owners 

wanting to purchase new racing prospects could reinvest a good percentage of that 

money. Today, none of the money leaking out of purses is being reinvested in 

horses. 

With the incentives for the tracks changing away from live racing, inevitably 

tracks will discontinue live racing. They can make more money taking bets on other 

tracks races, so the live sport will become more and more regional. 

We still have great facilities in our major markets and it is vitally important to 

restore a business model that will allow them to not just survive, but to prosper. 

At this year’s Belmont Stakes, the once-a-year crowd of 94,000 people overwhelmed the water system. In America’s biggest market, a track built to handle 

large attendance has been brought to its knees by the current off-track model. Restoring a business model that favors ‘‘where the show is produced’’ will restore our 

major tracks and the sport. 

Giving the majority to ‘‘where the bet is made’’ is a distribution model gone crazy 

and it has done its damage in just twenty-five years. It has allowed gimmicks such 

as ‘‘source market fees’’, to leak purse money when there is no track in the state 

where the bet is made. As tracks start closing, more and more of the erroneous 

‘‘source market fees’’ will be leaked from purses. ‘‘Source market fees’’ must be 

stopped and the term ‘‘source market’’ should once again come to mean the source 

of the live racing show. 

If a state such as New Jersey has passed legislation that prohibits paying a host 

track in another state more than 3%, then the racehorse owners should not approve 

their races being sent into that state until such laws are changed. 

Gross handle means nothing to racehorse owners and the sport if those wagers 

are not contributing enough to put on the live racing show. By instituting a fair offtrack business model, racing could see the annual gross handle drop from $15 billion 

to $12 billion, and still have more money going to support purses and host tracks. 

Isn’t that what is important? 

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? 

Just after simulcasting started, a war developed between the big tracks that were 

‘‘net exporters’’ of races and the small tracks that were ‘‘net importers’’. The net importers were those tracks making more net money from their customers wagers on 

races ‘‘imported’’ from other tracks, than they were making from the bets made offtrack on their exported live races. 

The big ‘‘net exporters’’ were tracks in New York and California. Those were the 

tracks with high purses and high attendance benefiting from large population centers. 

Soon the insane business model giving the lion’s share to ‘‘where the bet was 

made’’ brought the California and New York tracks to their knees. Purses dropped, 

horses left, and attendance fell off at our major tracks. Suddenly, the world was upside down and with racehorse owners on the sidelines, there was no one to correct 

the problem. 

46 

Racing’s business model was changing and the small tracks and the new gambling 

‘‘racinos’’ started pulling horses away from our major markets to remote rural facilities, such as Iowa and West Virginia. The little guys were winning and our most 

successful host tracks were losing. The problem is when the best tracks in the major 

markets are losing; the national sport of Thoroughbred racing is losing. No one 

seemed to care. 

In 1992, I wrote an article called ‘‘Whose Game Is It?’’ and for a time racehorse 

owners started to engage. Later that year, Ed Friendly resigned from the California 

HBPA Board and with Mace Segal and other friends started Thoroughbred Owners 

of California (TOC). Soon they successfully changed California law to mandate TOC 

as the rightful organization to represent racehorse owners for simulcast approval. 

Funding was provided for the HBPA to continue their role with backstretch issues. 

The following year, Don Rudder and friends started Thoroughbred Owners of Florida (TOF) to do the same thing in that state. Just when it looked like we were going 

to engage racehorse owners, a strange thing happened. Commercial breeders in 

Florida and Kentucky convinced the leading racehorse owners who had signed up 

to start the TOF, to quit and as quick as it started, that was the end of the racehorse owners’ movement. No other state racehorse owners’ organizations were started. 

The TOC represents every racehorse owner who starts a horse in California and 

they have done a fine job, however the TOC is powerless to change the current business model alone. The Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) empowers and requires approval from the horsemen at receiving tracks in other states and they looked at 

California as the enemy. 

By amending the IHA to rightfully empower racehorse owners across the country 

by law, we can avoid the state-by-state turf battles between breeders, trainers and 

racehorse owners. The structure in California is a good model. Each group—racehorse owners, tracks, trainers, jockeys and breeders—have a distinct organization. 

In other words, when they sit down to do business, they are not wearing more than 

one hat in California. 

Today, with the current off-track business model, it has evolved to where there 

are no more ‘‘net exporting’’ tracks. Think about what that means to our sport. With 

the host track receiving only half (one-and-a-half of the three percent) from off-track 

wagers, incentives to put on a good live show are gone. The host tracks cannot even 

afford to market their own races, so declining attendance at live racing and declining interest in the sport should not be a surprise. 

The consumer research I have seen shows that the majority of the generation 

born since simulcasting started in 1978 does not have a favorable opinion of Thoroughbred racing. 

We are losing the majority of a generation because we do not have a structure 

to protect and grow the sport. 

Is it any wonder the tracks and horsemen are at each other’s throats? They are 

literally picking at the bones and trying to establish new businesses to go after the 

$540 million leaking out of racing because of the insane model of the lion’s share 

going to ‘‘where the bet is made’’. 

Currently the horsemen’s groups are fighting with account wagering companies 

to start putting more into purses. But, the amount they are asking from account 

wagers ($30 to $40 million) pales in comparison to the $540 million leaking from 

the system because of the basic problem of ‘‘where the bet is made’’. Unfortunately, 

the horsemen have no appetite to change from the business model that favors 

‘‘where the bet is made’’. The original simulcast business model was a form of welfare for the small tracks that got out of hand. 

How can we stop leaking $540 million this year and assure a fair amount of all 

wagers on a host track’s races go into its purse account? We simply change the offtrack business model from a buyers’ market over to a sellers’ market, where the 

lion’s share will go to the host track and racehorse owners putting on the show. 

By engaging racehorse owners, we will start to have businessmen and businesswomen who understand the business model of the past twenty-five years is wrong. 

The host track and racehorse owners must control their product and its distribution. 

That is one of the most basic principals of business. 

A BETTER BUSINESS MODEL

If racehorse owners develop a two-tier pricing model at the host track, we can continue a favored distribution system through other racetracks, while closing the leakage that occurs with other bet takers, such as account wagering companies and outlets with no live racing. Every phase of the distribution system must start contributing a fair amount to producing the show. 

47 

The first tier could be changing to an off-track model similar to the one the Breeders’ Cup uses, where half of the takeout goes to the host track and the other half 

to the receiving track. That should keep about 8% in purse accounts when tracks 

trade signals. 

The second tier-pricing model for other bet takers should start with a license fee 

of close to 8% going into purses at the host track. Exotic wagers have increased the 

total takeout to about 21% today, thus with a 5% commission paid to the off-track 

bet takers, the host track would receive about 8% for its role in putting on the show. 

So, with about 8% going into purses, regardless of whether the bets were made 

on-track or off-track, each track will be on a level playing field for the first time. 

That’s the model we should have had in place from the beginning. It is a model we 

can have in place soon. 

When this change occurs, we may lose some distribution as off-track buyers adjust. If some current outlets are lost along the way, technology will allow bettors 

to continue wagering with the host tracks. 

Why do you need 8% going to purses? Say you project the off-track handle on one 

day at the host track will be $5 million. That would deliver $400,000 to purses. 

Combining that with projected on-track handle of say $500,000 at 8% ($40,000), the 

purse account would get $440,000, or enough for 9 races averaging $40,000 each. 

Not bad, but less than it costs for racehorse owners to keep the horses in the game. 

Under the current model, the purse account would only get 1 1/2 % of that $5 

million in off-track handle on its races, or $75,000, plus the on-track contribution 

of $40,000, for a total of $115,000. Then the purse account and host track would 

be dependent on whatever came in from bets on other tracks’ races. The track and 

racehorse owners do not have control over their own destiny under the current offtrack model. 

THE INCENTIVE TO PRODUCE A GOOD SHOW

What happens if the host track starts producing a good show? In a model where 

the host track purse account would get a fair 8% from the off-track handle on its 

races, if the host track can put on and market a good show and the off-track handle 

goes up to $10 million, then the purse account would get $800,000. Combining that 

$800,000 with $40,000 from on-track, would give you $840,000, or 9 races averaging 

$93,333. That’s the incentive needed for putting on a good show. In addition, the 

host track and purse account would get 3 to 4% of wagers made on imported races. 

Also, under the current off-track pricing model there is no incentive for the host 

track to market its races. Currently, the host track has more incentive to market 

other tracks’ races to their simulcast customers, than to market their own races. 

Not surprisingly, there are a lot of people scrambling to come up with a new business to go after the $540 million being leaked out of purses. 

Who will lose when the leaking is stopped? The only people who will lose when 

the offtrack business model is changed are those not involved in live racing. If any 

entity involved in live racing loses under the change, then they were doing something they should not have been doing. TrackNet, a joint venture of Churchill 

Downs and Magna Entertainment, wants the account wagering companies (ADW’s) 

it owns to pay 7% to host tracks (3 ° % to purses), then a wild mix of ‘‘source market 

fees’’ and 2% to 3% of handle to the television company they own. For areas of the 

country without a track nearby, all the rest of the money goes to TrackNet. That 

means the purse account at the host track would only get 3 ° %, but their ‘‘partner’’ 

host track could get upwards of 15%. That doesn’t seem to fit the agreed upon split 

of 50-50 does it? 

Churchill Downs and Magna Entertainment own the television company, HRTV, 

jointly. They want it funded by a percentage of handle, 2 to 3%. Under such a 

model, HRTV would either be underpaid or overpaid. Television production is a 

fixed expense and should be paid a set amount. It would be good for the host tracks 

to sit down with their partners, the racehorse owners, and agree on the value of 

television production and how it can be funded properly to grow the business and 

the sport. It is not good business to fund television production with a percentage 

of handle. 

If racehorse owners will engage now in the business side of running the sport, 

we can then hope it will spill over into other issues like safety of the participants 

and a host of other issues. With a national racehorse owners’ organization, they can 

decide how best to protect and grow the sport at every level. It’s their game. 

Over the years, I have commissioned a great deal of consumer research on Thoroughbred racing. I can assure everyone there is a clear path for Thoroughbred racing to restore itself as a successful, national sport. But, it cannot be done without 

putting in place a business model that provides an incentive to put on the live racVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-129 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
48 

ing show. The process starts when racehorse owners engage, fix this obvious problem and take responsibility for their game. 

The nature of an action sport like Thoroughbred racing means bad things are 

going to happen from time to time. We need to make our sport strong enough to 

overcome problems. 

I like the word ‘‘engage’’ as it applies to racehorse owners. It brings to mind the 

movie Top Gun. The crisis in the movie came when the lead character, Maverick, 

would not engage to protect his partner and his lack of commitment was putting 

his carrier ship in danger. When Maverick overcame his fears, took responsibility 

and engaged, his partner was saved, the ship was saved and the story had a happy 

ending.We need some racehorse owners with a little maverick in them to engage 

now and save the sport of Thoroughbred racing. 

© 2008, Fred A. Pope 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

We are going to move to the question period. And be assured that 

many of you all will have an opportunity to expand on your remarks during that time. 

I am going to first ask 5 minutes of questions. 

I am going to do just a quick ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ throughout the entirely panel to make sure we have it clearly on the record. Do you 

believe horse racing should be governed by a central body similar 

to the National Football League or the Professional Golfers Association or similar to the way horse racing is governed by a central 

body in Great Britain? 

Let’s start with Mr. Marzelli. 

Mr. MARZELLI. Industry-led, yes. Federally, Federal oversight, 

no. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. That is a good division, too. You can say that. 

Mr. Shapiro? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I absolutely believe that there needs to be a central 

governance body. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Van Berg? 

Mr. VAN BERG. I believe the same thing. There needs to be a central governing body to make them all alike. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Moss? 

Mr. MOSS. Yes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Hancock? 

Mr. HANCOCK. Yes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And Mr. Jackson? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, but I think you ought to give industry a 

chance, and if they don’t step up, you better step in. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Do you believe that the benefits of the Interstate Horse Racing Act should be conditioned, as was mentioned 

earlier, on racing jurisdictions adopting strict, well-understood 

medication and drug guidelines, stiff penalties? I guess we are really talking about simulcast. 

Mr. MARZELLI. No. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. As a last resort, yes. 

Mr. VAN BERG. I believe yes, with no medication whatsoever. 

Zero. 

Mr. MOSS. As an outside observer looking into the industry, I 

can’t think of any other stick that would work. So my answer 

would be a conditional yes. 

Mr. HANCOCK. Yes, ma’am. I think that is the only thing we can 

do to get it right. 

49 

Mr. JACKSON. I am a firm yes, unless something happens quickly 

by the industry. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Do you believe breeding should be regulated 

in the United States the way it is in other racing jurisdictions overseas, Mr. Marzelli? 

Mr. MARZELLI. I am not sure I understand the question. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. In Germany they regulate how breeding is 

conducted, et cetera. 

Mr. MARZELLI. There is not one—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. For soundness. 

Mr. MARZELLI. I am sorry to not give a yes or no, but there is 

not one of the 64 recognized stud books that imposes restrictions. 

Germany has incentives, the way many of our States have breeders 

incentives. So I guess the answer would be I still am not sure of 

the question. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK, you know what? I am going to move on 

then, if that question is somewhat unclear. 

Let me ask this. Should all performance-enhancing drugs, including steroids, all of them be eliminated? 

Mr. MARZELLI. Yes. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Without question, yes. 

Mr. VAN BERG. Yes. 

Mr. MOSS. Not just performance-enhancing drugs, all drugs, period. Yes. 

Mr. HANCOCK. Yes. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, a firm yes, including anything that alters the 

appearance of a horse at a sale, as well. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

Mr. Marzelli, I wanted to ask you, you heard very clearly from 

Mr. Hancock and Mr. Jackson and all the rest concerns about 

whether or not the current regimen is really capable of making the 

kinds of changes that are needed. And yet you expressed a certain 

confidence that the new safety committee that says that certain 

drugs anyway should be eliminated would be swiftly adopted. 

What I hear from the body of the rest of the testimony is that 

these kinds of efforts have been unsuccessful in the past. Why do 

you think it would succeed this time? 

Mr. MARZELLI. Well, for starters, I am an optimist. And if you 

are not, in this business, you need to find something else to do. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Based on? 

Mr. MARZELLI. I am just an optimist at heart. 

We certainly make it difficult on ourselves. The 38 jurisdictions 

in which we have to go to to achieve uniformity is not efficient. 

There is no question of that. But I guess it was about 20 years ago 

when Rupert Murdoch bought the Daily Racing Forum from Walter 

Annenberg, the industry got very, very concerned, certainly not at 

the magnitude we are concerned with now. 

Nobody said the industry could achieve what we have achieved 

today—that is, an industry-owned database of racing information, 

resting that control away from what was then a 90-year-old thirdparty publisher monopoly. We did that; we got industry consensus 

to achieve it. And today the Daily Racing Forum is not only 

Equibase’s biggest customer, but they operate in a virtual enterprise with us. 

50 

I would like to think we are at that same kind of crossroads 

today. I have seen a lot of support for our recommendations, not 

only since Tuesday but since we announced the formation of this 

committee. And I would like to see if we are able to get those—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am sympathizing right now with the witnesses because I have run out of time. And so I will ask Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

And thank you all for your testimony. We appreciate that very 

much. 

Mr. Marzelli, back in 1980, legislation was introduced at the Federal level to create uniform drug rule. And the industry came to 

Congress. Senator Mathias and Senator Pryor of Arkansas induced 

it. And the industry came and said, ‘‘It is not necessary. We can 

adopt a uniform rule.’’ We are 28 years later, and it still has not 

been done. 

Now, the question I have for you is this. You all formed a committee after Eight Belles went down, which was commendable. And 

I read the other day, as you mentioned, you all have come down 

with certain recommendations: banning steroids, toe grabs and so 

forth, and something relating to the whip. 

My question is, do you have the power to put this into effect 

around the country? 

Mr. MARZELLI. No. We have the power of persuasion and consensus-building. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And I think that your record would reflect that 

you do not have even that power. We are 28 years later, and still 

very little progress has been made. Now, I know that they talk 

about there is a uniform rule adopted by various jurisdictions in 

the 38, but each one of those rules is different. And I notice in Louisiana, for example, they adopted a uniform rule and then the legislature reversed it down there. 

So I would suggest that I think it has been clearly demonstrated 

over all these years that The Jockey Club, the NTRA do not have 

the authority. I mean, the NTRA is a marketing agent. You can do 

all you want to about consensus and so forth. 

But the question I would have for you is, if we can use the Interstate Horse Racing Act, which provides this industry with the revenue that it needs, 90 percent of the revenue—and the industry 

asked for it—and if we can set minimum standards that would 

make it mandatory that jurisdictions ban steroids, ban toe grabs, 

it is accomplishing what you want, why would you oppose that? 

Mr. MARZELLI. I would like to see the industry regulate itself. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, Mr. Van Berg, you are a hall-of-fame trainer. It is my understanding that you won more races than any living 

trainer. Is that correct? 

Mr. VAN BERG. That is correct. 

Is this on now? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Is drug use as widespread as it appears to be? 

Mr. VAN BERG. I will put it mildly or put it to the point: It is 

like chemical warfare. I will just put it straight out to you. It has 

got, as far as I am concerned, plum out of hand. 

51 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Why are people using these drugs? I mean, if a 

horse can run on natural ability, why would they be pumping them 

up with all of these drugs? 

Mr. VAN BERG. Why do these people that have been in the Olympics, now finding out that they used steroids, they used EPO, 

which is an enhancer for your blood to build your blood up and 

those things, and they are finding out now, and they are taking 

their medals away from them. 

I have an article I showed the rest of them about this girl that 

was the fastest girl in the country, that admitted finally now she 

was on EPO and steroids and what it did to her as far as the female part. And, in the horse business, you know, it is like keeping 

up with the McCoys. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And if a horse on its own natural ability has a 

pain, he’s not going to run, but if he can shoot something in 

there—— 

Mr. VAN BERG. They can overcome that. And it is the same as 

Clenbuterol. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Jackson—this time gets to us, doesn’t it? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Right. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Jackson, I read your testimony, and you had 

included an article written by Fred Pope—— 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD [continuing]. And about amending the Interstate 

Horse Racing Act. Here is the question I want to ask you: when 

the HBPA comes and testifies in Congress, they say that they represent all the owners and all the trainers. And I would like to ask 

you—— 

Mr. JACKSON. When who comes in? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The HBPA. Do you pay any dues to the HBPA? 

Mr. JACKSON. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Hancock, do you play any dues to the 

HBPA? 

Mr. HANCOCK. No. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, the reason that they are designated in the 

Interstate Horse Racing Act, they are the ones that primarily wrote 

the Interstate Horse Racing Act, and that is how they became designated as the ones that approved the simulcast contract. 

Mr. JACKSON. A lot of organizations, Representative Whitfield, 

pretend to represent the owners, and they don’t. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Who are the stakeholders in racing today? 

Mr. JACKSON. The owners. We pour $4 billion a year, over $4 billion, $4.3 billion, into the industry for racing and training horses, 

and we get $1.1 billion back. The owners are the lifeblood of the 

industry, the new people coming in. But what happens is the organizations maintain control in their fiefdom and we can’t alter the 

change. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So the owners and the racetracks are the real 

stakeholders, I am assuming? 

Mr. JACKSON. Well, actually, central Kentucky breeders and the 

racetracks are the primary voices that exclude the owners and the 

horse itself. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

I guess my time has expired. 

52 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Stearns? 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Well, I can see why Mr. Dutrow perhaps didn’t show up. This is 

a staggering amount of information to hear from you folks. 

Steroids in horse racing is widespread—Mr. Shapiro. We even 

heard that Mr. Jackson says he doesn’t want to buy horses in Florida or any other State in the Union because there is so much inbreeding. So he goes to Argentina and Germany to buy horses and 

not the United States. That is a telling comment, I would think. 

And I would think, Mr. Marzelli, that that would be a very disturbing comment, that there is so much inbreeding in the United 

States that he doesn’t feel comfortable, with all of his experience 

in horse racing. 

So my question for you is, the Jockey Club places all sorts of restrictions on thoroughbreds in order to qualify to be registered. For 

instance, your organization lists extensive rules on how a horse can 

be named. Isn’t that true? 

Mr. MARZELLI. That is true, subsequent to registration. 

Mr. STEARNS. You also won’t register a horse that was a product 

of artificial insemination. Is that true? 

Mr. MARZELLI. True. 

Mr. STEARNS. Why won’t your organization put similar rules for 

sound breeding principles in place? 

Mr. MARZELLI. Because we believe they would be selective and 

arbitrary. 

Mr. STEARNS. And the fact that Mr. Jackson says he won’t even 

buy a horse in the United States, doesn’t that concern you? 

Wouldn’t you think would have to put some sound breeding principles in place? 

Mr. MARZELLI. It concerns me that Mr. Jackson says that, but 

the fact is that the number of exports that left North America in 

the last 5 years have increased by 27 percent. There is still a great 

demand for a North American bloodlines around the world. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Jackson, you are welcome to reply. 

Mr. JACKSON. The Jockey Club is a fiefdom, one of the many. 

And it does a good job of making recommendations; it has no power 

to execute those recommendations. We need a national organization with the strength of the owners backed to get any change. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Moss, you indicated that there are 38 racing 

commissions and they are all Nero-like CEOs. I think that was 

your statement. Is that correct? 

Mr. MOSS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. Is The Jockey Club one of those Nero-like organizations? 

Mr. MOSS. Well, I am a member of The Jockey Club, and it is 

great for what it does, but it has no way to control the rest of the 

industry. None of us do, none of these fiefdoms. 

Mr. STEARNS. So it is not his fault; he just doesn’t have the authority. 

Mr. MOSS. That is right. That is right. 

Mr. STEARNS. He has responsibility with no authority. 

Mr. HANCOCK. That is right, yes, sir. 

53 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Marzelli, why not put some hard and fast rules 

on only 4-by-4 inbreeding, on only horses that have never been on 

steroids? 

Mr. MARZELLI. Once again, we are a member of the International 

Stud Book Committee, and we subscribe to the international definition of the ‘‘thoroughbred,’’ which does not impose selective and arbitrary measures or attributes in what constitutes a thoroughbred. 

If we impose selective and arbitrary attributes, we not only 

would open ourselves up to criticism that we were being selective, 

but we would prohibit or restrict trade around the world, because 

our definition of a thoroughbred would differ from the rest of the 

world. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, our drug rules differ, don’t they? 

Mr. MARZELLI. The drug rules differ on track. And I am not a 

fan of them, by the way. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Mr. MARZELLI. And I take a lot of heat when I travel internationally about them. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Jackson mentioned that the Interstate Horse 

Act, if we just changed two words, ‘‘and trainer,’’ that would go a 

long way. Do all of you agree with what he said? 

Is that correct, what you said? 

Mr. JACKSON. Basically, yes. Although I am not pretending to 

give the Congress words. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, no. I would say to the witnesses that there 

probably will be a bill after the second hearing, and this bill will 

probably, might even be sunset to help you get started with a national horse racing commission. I had a bill to do this with the boxing commission, and I had it sunset. It was my bill in the House 

and Senator McCain in the Senate. And it was defeated on the 

House floor. It passed overwhelmingly in the subcommittee and the 

full committee, but it was defeated in the House. But I would suspect that some kind of bill that perhaps would sunset would help 

you get started on this. 

But my question is, and ask each of you if you agree with Mr. 

Jackson, just deleting the words ‘‘and trainer’’ as a step for this 

committee is a good idea. 

Mr. MARZELLI. I would like to see the text before I comment. 

Mr. STEARNS. All he is saying is delete two words. 

Mr. MARZELLI. Which are? 

Mr. STEARNS. ‘‘And trainer’’ from the act. 

Mr. MARZELLI. I—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I guess you are not familiar enough with it. 

Mr. MARZELLI. No. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Instead of ‘‘horsemen’s group,’’ it would say 

‘‘horse owner.’’ 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes, good point. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I appreciate Mr. Jackson’s perspective, but I think 

it is really superfluous to what the act needs to be revised to really 

make fundamental change and create central governance, which I 

believe is the goal of what Mr. Jackson and what all of us believe. 

And, therefore, I think—— 

Mr. STEARNS. We are all struggling to understand your issue, 

and we are asking for your help on what to do. Soif you don’t know, 

54 

you can say you don’t know. So I am just asking if you agree with 

him. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I don’t know that I agree with that particular part, 

but we are certainly late in getting out of the starting gate to create a central body of governance, which this industry sorely needs. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Quickly, Mr. Van Berg? 

Mr. VAN BERG. I would say I don’t know that much about it, but 

I think that, as far as you are talking about the breeding and stuff, 

you need a central governor. 

And if you stop all medications, zero of anything, that will eliminate the unsound horses themselves. They will eliminate themselves. I don’t think you can sit here and talk toe grabs and whatnot. You need to eliminate the medication, zero. The unsoundness 

of horses will eliminate themselves and make your racetracks deep 

enough where speed is not the thing. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Moss? 

Mr. MOSS. I seldom pass up a chance to give an opinion, but, in 

this particular situation, I am not that familiar with the subtle nuances of the language of the Interstate Horse Racing Act. So I 

would have to give you an ‘‘I don’t know’’ there. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Hancock? 

Mr. HANCOCK. Yes, sir. Well, I think the Army needs a general. 

I mean, we have a lot of great organizations, but, as I say, they 

are scattered and not organized and oppose one another. And so I 

just think the Army needs a general. Does that answer your question? 

Mr. STEARNS. Sort of. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. JACKSON. On that one point, I just wanted to eliminate the 

impression that just that would be all we might be asking. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, no, but as a start. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, as a start, I think it will encourage or embolden the owners to organize and bring their respective States together to a national organization. And then if it didn’t, then I think 

Congress should—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Yeah, give the owners the authority they need. 

Thank you, Chairwoman. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. There are four votes right now that the members are going to have to go down to the floor for. We will resume 

right after that. 

I am not going to be able, I don’t think, to come back until later, 

so someone else will be in the Chair. But I want to thank all the 

witnesses. And please wait, and we will complete this round of 

questioning. 

Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. If everyone could take their seats so we can 

resume. 

We will resume the questioning now with Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Marzelli, in your testimony, you talk about the importance 

of uniform rules, both domestically and internationally, with regard 

55 

to breeding. Do you believe that a uniform set of rules should also 

govern the use of medications? 

Mr. MARZELLI. Yes. 

Mr. PITTS. Should there be a ban on steroids and other medications? If so, which ones? 

Mr. MARZELLI. We are moving to a ban on anabolic steroids. 

Eleven of 38 States have already put in place regulations to ban 

those steroids on race day. And we hope that the remaining jurisdiction will do so by the end of the year. 

Mr. PITTS. In March, Curlin won the Dubai World Cup in the 

United Arab Emirates, but there are different rules that govern the 

sport there. Does The Jockey Club have a position on this inconsistency? If other countries can have zero tolerance, what is holding 

us back from adopting the same stance? 

Mr. MARZELLI. The Jockey Club has a long history of being antimedication. We have engaged ourselves in a number of industry 

initiatives, from the racing medication testing program, the quality 

assurance program, the Equine Drug Research Institute. And in 

every one of those industry organizations, we have advocated a 

strong—I wouldn’t go so far as to say a ‘‘hay, oats and water’’ mentality, but a as-close-to-zero-tolerance-as-possible mentality, distinguishing between performance-enhancing and therapeutic. 

Mr. PITTS. So what is the difference between banning race-day 

medications and banning steroids during training? Would there be 

a difference in approach to training situations? 

Mr. MARZELLI. Actually, the recommendation we came out with 

is an effective ban on race day and training. 

Mr. PITTS. Both. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Shapiro, in your observations, what do you believe the most 

fundamental concern is, the pharmacological culture in horse racing today or the breeding practices? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Oh, I think clearly it is the pharmacological issues 

that are hurting racing. I think that if you were to look at a graph 

of the number of starts per year of horses dating back to 1960 and 

you were to then look at when medications that were brought on 

board for therapeutic uses but used in fact in racing, I think you 

would see a direct correlation in the downward trend in the number of starts. 

I think that the root of the problem today is medication. And my 

fear is that, as medications are used in the breed and they are 

being bred into the breed, I think that what they are doing is they 

are masking infirmities and problems in the breed, and it is being 

perpetuated as the breeding continues. 

So I believe the Number 1 thing is medication. But overriding 

that is there has to be a central body to regulate it nationally. I 

am the only regulator here from this particular State. And our 

problem is that we are disadvantaged in California because we test 

more. And as we are more vigilant than other States, we are disadvantaged. And we need other States to join with us to rout out 

medication. 

Mr. PITTS. Currently for what violations does the NTRA primarily discipline members, and what are the penalties? 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Who are you asking the question to? 

Mr. PITTS. You. 

56 

Mr. SHAPIRO. Me? 

Mr. PITTS. Yes. 

Mr. SHAPIRO. I am not aware of the NTRA doling out any penalties. I don’t believe it is their job, or I don’t believe that they are 

an enforcement agency. They are an agency to promote the industry and make recommendations, but I am not aware of their having 

any power to enforce the penalties. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Mr. Van Berg, what kind of strict penalties do you envision? Suspension, a permanent ban, what type? 

Mr. VAN BERG. Number one, you have to eliminate the medications, zero tolerance of anything, to eliminate it. That is where you 

have to start. The unsoundness of horses, they will eliminate themselves if you stop the medication where they can’t bring them 

along. 

And then you have to make the penalty where they have to stand 

up and give them a severe penalty. Nowadays, if they have a bad 

test, they get a slap on the hand or make a little agreement that 

they won’t have another one, and they just go on with it. 

And I think, for the welfare of the animal and the horse-racing 

industry, they have to be on a level playing field. And you have to 

have somebody, a commissioner or whatever you need, to enforce 

the thing throughout all the States. 

Mr. PITTS. Do you support the idea of some kind of a national 

governing body for horse racing? 

Mr. VAN BERG. I would support it as a commissioner so everybody has to be on the same level, yes, I support that, with the right 

kind of commissioner that knows what is going on. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Mr. Moss, in your opinion, is it possible to reform within the 

NTRA, or do we need a completely new construct? 

Mr. MOSS. The NTRA is populated with people who have the best 

interests of the sport in mind. There are a lot of bright, intelligent 

people at the helm of the NTRA. 

But the problem, as I see it, is that the NTRA and other agencies 

in thoroughbred racing have no teeth. They have no power to mandate any sort of meaningful changes in thoroughbred racing. And 

however that is accomplished, that is a path that, in my opinion, 

thoroughbred racing needs to go down. 

Mr. PITTS. In your opinion, what incentives under the current 

structure do the members of the NTRA have to adopt stricter 

standards? 

Mr. MOSS. I think the public outcry over the Eight Belles incident, following the Barbaro incident, has really created a 

groundswell of support within the racing industry for change. I 

mean, keep in mind, as you probably know, this is an industry that 

has often been allergic to change. That is a positive sign. And I 

think the NTRA feels that it has a mandate within the industry 

to try to enact change whenever possible. 

But in the end, when you look at the Thoroughbred Safety Committee’s recommendations the other day, which were admirable, 

which were very good, you look at the response of all the industry 

leaders, they use words like, ‘‘we support,’’ ‘‘we strongly support,’’ 

‘‘we urge.’’ There is no requirement, there is no mandate there. 

57 

They can only beg and plead, basically, the 38 different State jurisdictions to go along with these recommendation. And that is the 

problem that thoroughbred racing has, in my opinion. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Pitts, we are going to do another round. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. I will yield back. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Hancock, in your testimony you state that 

the veterinarians are running the show. Can you explain that? 

Mr. HANCOCK. Well, a couple years ago, I was at Keeneland, and 

I told the veterinarian that I didn’t want my horses to get anything 

unless they were sick. And he said, ‘‘Well, Arthur, you want to win 

races, don’t you?’’ And I said, well, sure. And I got the picture. 

Other horses are going to be getting anabolic steroids and Lasix 

and these performance enhancers. And I have my family’s business 

in this, and I can’t fight with my hands tied behind my back. So, 

you know. 

The veterinarians, like in Lexington, one of the bigger banks, the 

biggest accounts up there, the veterinary pharmaceuticals, they 

convince the trainers, who want to win of course, and then the 

trainers convince the owners. And I am an owner and I don’t want 

to lose races. So I don’t want to be at a disadvantage. 

It is just a vicious cycle. But if these drugs were banned, you 

know, you could eliminate all that. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. But the veterinarians are making significant 

profits from this as well, are they not? 

Mr. HANCOCK. Very significant, yes, ma’am. I mean, vet bills can 

run $1,000 a month, or I have heard them running $2,000 a month. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And is that primarily because of the drugs? 

Mr. HANCOCK. Sure. I got out of Vanderbilt in 1965, and I 

worked the racetrack for a year until 1966. And the only time a 

veterinarian came around the barn was if the horse was sick or 

they came to check him for race day. And now veterinarians are 

now at the barns almost every day. I could show you the vet bills. 

I mean, they run $700, $800, $900, sometimes $1,700 a month. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

Mr. Moss, you come from ESPN and ABC Sports, so can you 

elaborate on your advocacy for a horse racing league similar to the 

NFL or PGA? What would that look like? 

Mr. MOSS. What would it look like? Well, for starters, whether 

it be done with Federal mandates or however it be accomplished, 

it would have to be a regulatory agency with the power, perhaps, 

to take votes from the various State organizations, whatever, but 

the power to mandate significant changes for the best interest—— 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And what kind of sanctions would you envision that would make it possible to enforce such rules? 

Mr. MOSS. The only potential sanction that I have heard discussed that would make any sense at all would be the sanction 

that some of you recommended about simulcasting rights. I can’t 

think of any other stick that is out there that would work. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. OK. 

Mr. MOSS. Maybe there isn’t one. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Does anybody else want to comment on what 

this national structure would look like? 

Yes, Mr. Van Berg? 

58 

Mr. VAN BERG. Well, the first and most important thing is to 

have the testing procedure funded where they can do the most sophisticated testing there is. So each State pays for their own testing. And some of them don’t have enough money to test for everything they do, so they have to take some money from the simulcast, 

which I say there is plenty there for them to use, in a very minute 

percent, and have the most sophisticated testing there is. That is 

where you have to start. 

And then you have to have a commissioner to start to enforce the 

rules for each and every State so they are the same. And if somebody doesn’t abide by the rules, then they go down the road. And 

it is just plain and simple, where they can’t get a lawyer and take 

a thing—when you sign for your license, that is what you go by. 

But they have to have the testing, because a lot of testings are 

not right. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And you are suggesting that a funding mechanism for that could be a percentage of the simulcast? 

Mr. VAN BERG. I would say, I just know from California, when 

they took a small, minute percent of the off-track stabling and banning stuff, and it was a very minute percent, and they had an 

abundance of money for banning the horses, stabling them at the 

racetracks, paying them to keep the track open and stuff. I just 

suggested in my testimony that one-eighth of 1 percent would be 

a lot of money of all the simulcast, but have the best testing procedure there. It is like for the Olympics, they slowed them down and 

caught them, and made a big difference in them. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

I am going to turn it over to Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. Moss, let me ask you a question. You have been an observer 

of this industry for 30 years. You have been a reporter; you have 

followed it very closely. 

Given those observations, what, in your view, is the largest obstacle in the industry to go to uniform standards through some 

minimum standards at the Federal level? Why do some of these 

groups like The Jockey Club and others object to this so vehemently? 

Mr. MOSS. That is a good question. I think there is probably, in 

a lot of areas, there is a fear of Federal involvement, the fear of 

a loss of control of their own destiny, of their own sport. I 

think—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But it is so puzzling because if they make recommendations that we can help institute to accomplish their goal, 

then why would they object to it? 

Mr. MOSS. That is a good question. I mean, I think what we have 

seen is that the difference—the fragmented way that the sport is 

being conducted right now is just simply not working. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Van Berg, I get the impression in the horseracing industry, unlike most—when people violate the rules and 

are suspended for drug violations, there is usually some stigma attached to it. Yet, in this industry, an Eclipse Award trainer can be 

given that award even though he has violated all sorts of rules. 

Why is that, in this particular industry? 

59 

Mr. VAN BERG. Well, because they tolerate it, is the best I can 

tell you. That is what I am talking about when they give them a 

slap on the hand and they get one infraction after another and 

nothing ever happens to them. 

And they go along and people come to the racetrack—a young 

man comes to the racetrack, and he has no reputation, nothing to 

lose. A young veterinarian comes out of school. And if they can collaborate something that makes the horses do better, the first thing 

you know, the guy is the leading trainer and the veterinarian has 

all the business. So it is just a snowballing effect. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I have a letter that a vet wrote to one of his clients who had questioned the vet bill. And the vet stated, ‘‘The vet’s 

job is to work with the trainer to achieve whatever level of risk 

they desire.’’ That is quite a statement. 

Mr. VAN BERG. I can tell you this much, Mr. Whitfield, that a 

lot of people with a trainer’s license, the veterinarians are mostly 

training horses. Because when you ride by the barn, the veterinarian is jogging them go out on the path, looking at them. When 

you ride back by them, they have their tray out and injecting them 

or whatever they need to do to them. 

And, to me, that is not a good horseman. If you don’t know what 

is wrong with your horse yourself, you shouldn’t have a trainer’s 

license. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I am going to go into another area. 

Mr. Hancock, in your testimony you mentioned that certain foals 

have surgery and yet, when they go to sale, no one is ever aware 

of it. Would you elaborate on that a little bit? 

Mr. HANCOCK. Yes. If a young foal is crooked, he doesn’t have 

good conformation, you can have the veterinary procedures done 

called PEs or they have screws and wires they can put in the knees 

and things like that. And nobody ever hears about it. I mean, they 

go to the sale and—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. There is no requirement that it be disclosed? 

Mr. HANCOCK. No. And I recommended 15 or 20 years ago that 

that should be put on the registration papers, the foal papers, so 

we would have transparency. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But that is not required. 

Mr. HANCOCK. And it didn’t happen, no. It is money, you know. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Jackson, I think you or someone testified 

about the importance of having medical records available for these 

horses. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes. We certainly are breeders and prospective 

buyers. In fact, the public itself and certainly the regulatory agencies, if any, and certainly the organization should have a full documentation of the trail of ownership, like you have on a used car, 

on a horse. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. 

Mr. JACKSON. And you need the medical records, as well. 

I was a member of this Sales Integrity Task Force recently, and 

I was the only one dissenting. I wanted mandatory records in what 

is called the depository at an auction, where any prospective buyer 

could go in and see what medical treatments, what surgeries, what 

drugs, the whole medical history of a horse, so that they could 

make an informed decision as to whether that horse had both natVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-129 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
60 

ural running skills or breeding potential. I was the only dissenting 

voice in 40 members of that committee. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Let me ask you another question. How widespread is this problem that you encountered where agents that you 

hired to buy horses for you were taking kickbacks from breeders 

that were selling the horse to you? 

Mr. JACKSON. It is not as widespread as you might imagine, but 

it is too prevalent for the few that do it. And the industry hasn’t 

paid as much attention to it as it should. 

Just recently, both auction houses, Fasig-Tipton and of course 

Keeneland, took action to try to solve the problem. But it takes a 

regulatory body with an investigative arm to ferret out where this 

happens to process the claims or suspicions or accusations. Then 

they also have to have a body to adjudicate that. And then they 

have to have an enforcement mechanism. 

The industry hasn’t done that. They have taken baby steps instead of giant strides. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Am I correct in saying that you hired an agent 

to buy horses for you, and the breeders were giving that agent 

kickbacks if he bought horses from—— 

Mr. JACKSON. Some breeders, and then other breeders overseas. 

It even got Byzantine. It went all the way through undisclosed 

Swiss banks, bank accounts in Belgium and France, certified accountants in Ireland, fictitious LLCs where money was transferred. 

You couldn’t trace back to the owner what the history of a horse 

had been. And that allows people to be bribed. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Pitts? 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Hancock, you listed the many different conflicting and overlapping organizations and associations in the industry. In your 

view, are there particular groups that have been an impediment to 

reforming the sport? 

Mr. HANCOCK. No, sir, I wouldn’t say that, except that some of 

the groups—I think ego has a lot to do with it. They all envision 

themselves as the saviors of racing each respective group. They 

have their own CEO of the group and the members. And it is like 

some good people trying to pull a wagon, but they are all pulling 

in different directions. 

So I wouldn’t say there is any particular one, but it is just everybody is pulling in a different direction. The Army has no general. 

That is the way I see it, sir. 

Mr. PITTS. Do you feel that a Federal racing commission of some 

sort is definitely the way to go? Do you believe that a private-sector 

organization, similar to the NFL or NBA, could perform this function? 

Mr. HANCOCK. No, sir, I don’t. I wish that I thought that it could, 

but I have watched it for too many years. As I say, when Senator 

Mathias came up there, the industry came to Washington and said 

that we will get it in order and get it straight. But after hundreds 

of meetings and 28 years, nothing has happened. And there just 

doesn’t seem to be an urgency. 

I think now, since you all have called this hearing, there is more 

urgency now, I think, than there ever has been. But I still don’t 

61 

hold any hope, because, as I say, everybody is pulling in a different 

direction. The train has no engineer. That is my view. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Mr. Jackson, on the vet bills, your average vet bills, is that per 

horse each month or for the farm? 

Mr. JACKSON. Well, the vet bills have gone—let me say this. 

Back in the late 1930s, early 1940s, Santa Anita racetrack when 

Seabiscuit was running had three veterinarians on hire by the 

track, and they took care of all the horses while there. Now, if you 

go to Santa Anita, I bet there are 26 vets. The three used to drive 

Chevrolets. They all drive BMWs and Cadillacs now. 

There is a huge impact on racing, and the vet is impacted by convincing the trainers that if they want to win they can get this special thing this time and everybody else is doing it. So we have to 

stop it, stop it cold, zero tolerance. 

Mr. PITTS. What is your average vet bill a month? 

Mr. JACKSON. I would guess, because of surgeries, as Mr. Hancock mentioned, wires and screws—I am learning the business. I 

am re-emerging into—it is like ‘‘Alice in Wonderland.’’ It has 

changed from the time when I was in it before to where it is now. 

Now I have bills for knees, special hoofs, special wires, special surgeries, special removal of chips, OCDs. I would guess it is in the 

$1,000 to $5,000 per horse per year. And it could be a lot more. I 

am talking about surgeries, not medicines or therapeutic medicinal 

things. 

Mr. PITTS. That is in addition. 

Mr. JACKSON. In addition. And I am not talking about what they 

do generally to come out and help the birth of a foal or to make 

sure a mare is in comfort at foaling. 

Mr. PITTS. How do you, Mr. Jackson, suggest the industry or the 

governing body, if there were one, deal with off-track betting? 

Mr. JACKSON. Off-track betting is the money that has mushroomed to be the largest segment of the potential handle, but it is 

escaping the track and the purse. 

The track and the owners have a common interest in elevating 

what used to be 20 percent, part of that went to the State or the 

city, maybe 3 or 4 or 5 percent, and they would split 80—8 percent, 

and the purse was 8 percent of the handle. 

Well, now the handle does not include whatever goes offshore. It 

only includes part, a very reduced percentage, maybe 2 or 3 percent, and it varies, of what goes into computer betting or betting 

shops in New York or on TV. 

You can bet so many ways now, and the fastest growing part of 

the revenue that is generated by the show, the horse at the track 

is going, I would say, off and out of the handle. And that percentage that used to be 8 percent, it is distorted now. The horse probably get 3 percent of the total handle. It is off-track. 

On-track we still have the same regimen. And there is plenty of 

money there, please, to fund the veterinary clinics we need, the 

analysis, the labs. There is plenty of money to fund all the rest of 

it. We just don’t get it. It goes to the good old boy system on the 

breeding side, or it goes over to the betting parlors, or it gets maneuvered through the State on a disproportionate level. 

62 

And why is that? Owners cannot be at the table to negotiate the 

percentage because the trainers are there. The IHA allows them to 

be there, and we are absent. We need a commissioner, we need a 

national organization, so that the owners can have a fairer return 

on their money. 

Mr. PITTS. I think I have time for one more question. 

You have suggested that making medical records more accessible 

would improve transparency and help breeders make better decisions. Are there issues of confidentiality that such a change would 

implicate? And, if so, how should confidentiality issues be dealt 

with? 

Mr. JACKSON. I think that is a bogus argument. I am proud of 

the product I produce at Stonestreet. We put a headline on our 

catalog that we bred that horse and that we stand behind it. 

Confidentiality was explained to me by one breeder who argued 

that against our position in the Sales Integrity Task Force that, 

‘‘Oh, no, then we would have to tell our employees how much we 

are making.’’ Oh, boy. That is not an excuse for having an informed 

buyer and an informed breeder be fully informed in order to make 

decisions to correct the wrongs that exist in the breeding system 

and in the racing system. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I am going to have—it is not all the time that 

we have these long-time—if we combine all your years in the business, it is probably quite a few. And so Mr. Whitfield has another 

question, and I am going to go ahead and have him ask it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am going to approach this from a little bit different perspective, 

and this won’t take long. But there are certainly different levels of 

racing. There is the Churchill Downs, the Keenelands, the Saratogas, the big stakes races. And then there is racing at other tracks 

in which there are a lot of $2,000,$4,000 claiming races. 

And in those tracks, you frequently have horses—not frequently, 

but you do have horses sometimes who have won in their lifetime 

$500,000 or $600,000 and then end up in $2,000 claiming races. 

And when they get down to that level, there is a lot of injection 

of corticosteroids and other things to keep them running. 

And I know there are volunteer organizations out there, like 

CANTER up in Michigan and in the middle Atlantic States. And 

their sole mission is to go to the racetracks and try to convince 

trainers for horses who obviously can’t run anymore to let them try 

to retrain them for other uses. So the trainer, at that point, sometimes they will sell, sometimes they won’t sell. Sometimes they will 

take them and let them go to slaughter. 

But I want to say that CANTER, up in Michigan, for example, 

in 1 year—they raised their money voluntarily; the industry is not 

paying for any of this—that they spent over $50,000 on surgeries 

for horses that they took off of the track. So that is kind of backside, the dirty side, of racing at a very low level. 

I know that some breeders like Mr. Hancock and Mr. Jackson 

and others have established humane equine centers up in Lexington, Kentucky, where they will euthanize horses who have 

63 

reached the end of their racing career and they have serious problems and they can’t do anything else. 

Mr. Marzelli, I would ask you, does The Jockey Club have a foundation or contribute money to organizations like that to take care 

of these horses running at the lower levels of racing? 

Mr. MARZELLI. The Jockey Club has two foundations. It has The 

Jockey Club Foundation, which takes care of people that have fallen on hard times that have devoted their lives to the track. You 

mentioned Gary Birzer. I believe you mentioned it, Congressman 

Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I did. 

Mr. MARZELLI. We helped him. We were one of the organizations 

that helped him. 

And we also have the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, 

which is one of the worldwide leaders in equine research. Our research that we support supports not only thoroughbreds but it supports all breeds. 

The Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, together with 

The Jockey Club, organized the welfare and safety of the racehorse 

summit that held its first meeting, 40 industry leaders, in 2006. A 

number of recommendations and good action programs came out of 

that meeting. And—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Do you provide money to the Humane Equine 

Center in Lexington or groups like CANTER who are picking these 

horses up at the track? 

Mr. MARZELLI. We believe that every owner is responsible for 

their horse. And, as the member of the NTRA, we support the 

NTRA’s position on slaughter. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And that is? 

Mr. MARZELLI. The NTRA is against slaughter. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. OK. 

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And let me just add, I think it is pretty wellknown that Mr. Whitfield and I, for a long time, have been trying 

to stop the slaughter and export for slaughter of horses. And we 

are concerned that occasionally a byproduct of the mistreatment of 

horses in your industry results in just that, the slaughter and the 

export for slaughter of horses. 

So we thank you very much, gentlemen, for your appearing here 

today and for your testimony. 

And I would like to excuse this panel and welcome our second 

panel of witnesses and invite them to come to the witness table at 

this time. 

And I am going to turn the Chair over. Mr. Hill of Indiana will 

come to chair this meeting at this time. 

Mr. HILL [presiding]. OK. I would like to welcome our second 

panel of witnesses and once again invite them to come to the witness table at this time. Our witnesses are Lawrence Soma, a veterinarian of New Bolton Center, University of Pennsylvania. Dr. 

Soma is an equine pharmacologist and thus an expert on the effects of drugs and medications on thoroughbred racehorses. 

Sue Stover, a veterinarian at the University of California Davis. 

Dr. Stover is a specialist on orthopedics and has extensively studVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-129 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
64 

ied the cause of breakdowns and other injuries afflicting thoroughbred racehorses. Doctor, it is good to have you with us. 

Wayne McIlwraith, a veterinarian at the Colorado State University. Dr. McIlwraith is an orthopedic surgeon and, like Dr. Stover, 

is an expert on the nature and causes of injuries and breakdowns. 

Doctor, it is good to have you with us. 

Mary Scollay, medical director, Kentucky Horseracing Authority. 

Dr. Scollay was recently hired in her new position and was formerly the track veterinarian at Calder Racehorse Course in Florida. 

Allie Conrad, executive director of Mid-Atlantic CANTER. 

CANTER adopts thoroughbred racehorses from the track and 

trains them for new careers in retirement. 

And Alex Waldrop, president and CEO of National Thoroughbred 

Racing Association. Mr. Waldrop testified before the February 27th 

Senate committee hearing on performance-enhancing drugs in 

sports. NTRA is an association whose membership includes racetrack operators and the Jockey Club. 

Once again, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you 

that your written statements have all been shared with committee 

members and submitted for the record. If you have opening statements, please take up to no more than 5 minutes for them. 

We will begin from my left, your right, with our first witness 

Lawrence Soma. 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE R. SOMA, V.M.D., PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, NEW BOLTON CENTER, 

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Dr. SOMA. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am going 

to discuss two issues today, and that is anabolic steroids and 

furosemide as it pertains to in the bleeding horse. 

The State of Pennsylvania is presently regulating the use of anabolic steroids in racehorses. Pennsylvania began addressing the 

steroid issue in 2003. The impetus was the common knowledge of 

their use. At that time we developed analytical methods for detection, quantification and confirmation of injected and naturally occurring steroids in plasma. Those methods were published in 2005 

and 2006. 

Pennsylvania is currently regulating the use of anabolic steroids 

by analyzing postcompetition plasma samples. Plasma samples 

were chosen over urine because of the pharmacological action of 

any drug. It is generally based on the plasma concentration of the 

active drug and not its concentration in urine. The complex excretion pattern of steroids makes the analysis of urine more difficult, 

and in the use of plasma we can screen for the presence of the 

drug. 

We screen for approximately eight or nine anabolic steroids currently, and we allow its quantification; that is, we can tell how 

much is in there. Analysis of plasma samples from winning horses 

in 2003 confirmed that 60 percent of the horses racing in Pennsylvania had steroids in them, and some had more than one. That is 

in our first survey done in 19—I mean, excuse me, 2003. 

Anabolic steroids are very slowly eliminated from the body. Because of this problem the racing commission agreed on a transition 

65 

period using the plasma concentration of steroids as guideposts. 

This transition period would allow the horse to compete during this 

period as the plasma concentration of previously administered 

steroids decreased. 

The average plasma concentration of anabolic steroids has progressively dropped from the month of March, where we started 

screening all horses running in the State of Pennsylvania, through 

July 10th. As of July 10th the average concentration is below 100 

picograms per milliliter. Now, 100 picograms per milliliter is parts 

per trillion. In our survey in 2003, we had 2,000 or 3,000 to 4,000 

picograms of anabolic steroids or testosterone in some of our horses 

that are racing. We are now on the way. Just about most of the 

horses in the State of Pennsylvania are running free of anabolic 

steroids. 

So, in summary, I think we have made considerable progress. We 

are leveling the playing field as far as anabolic steroids are concerned, and to the best interests of the bettor and the horse. 

Now, the second issue is bleeding in the horse, and you have 

heard of the drug furosemide bandied around or Lasix bandied 

around numerous times today. In the horse small amounts of blood 

appear in the nostrils following vigorous exercise, and this has 

been noted for years. The source of blood is the lung, and this is 

termed ‘‘exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage,’’ meaning when 

the horse exercises vigorously, a small amount of blood is found in 

the airways, and then it works its way up into the trachea. The 

mechanism is the rupture of small capillaries, and this is because 

of the changes in blood pressure that occur in the lung in the 

horse, which are very high. Pressures of that magnitude, 100 millimeters of mercury or so in us, would produce pulmonary failure. 

Furosemide is used as a prerace medication with the expectation 

of reducing arterial lung pressures, thereby reducing or eliminating 

bleeding. The reduction in pulmonary pressure, pharmacologically 

and physiologically produced by furosemide are not of significant 

magnitude to prevent or markedly reduce bleeding. 

The effect of furosemide in EIPH. No studies have shown an absence of blood or a reduction of bleeding in horses diagnosed with 

EIPH following the administration of furosemide. 

The effect of furosemide on racing times. There have been a total 

of five studies to examine racing times. The largest examined the 

record of 22,000 horses running in North America. The conclusion 

from all studies was that horses that were administered furosemide 

raced faster, earned more money, and were more likely to win or 

finish in the top three positions than horses that did not. 

The detection of drugs in urine. A concern with the administration of furosemide is the dilution of urine produced by the extensive 

urination and the possible influence this dilution might have on detection of drugs in the urine. This aspect has been minimized as 

technology has increased. And as you know, if a horse is administered furosemide, it has to run 3 to 4 hours later. So this will minimize the effect on the finding of drugs in urine. But still it is a concern to all laboratories. 

In summary, furosemide does not prevent bleeding, improves performance in some horses, can dilute urine to compromise detection 

66 

of drugs, and violates the rules of most States that there should be 

no medication on race day. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Soma follows:] 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

Mr. HILL. Dr. Stover. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN M. STOVER, D.V.M., PH.D., DIPL. ACVS, 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS 

Dr. STOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

California has monitored racehorse deaths for over 15 years 

through a postmortem program mandated by the California Horseracing Board and implemented by the racetracks and the School of 

Veterinary Medicine at the University of California Davis. Over 

4,200 racehorses have been necropsied through this program. This 

is a sobering statistic. As a veterinarian this is devastating, and 

each fatality is totally unacceptable. 

My research laboratory is devoted to understanding the causes 

and development of injuries so that strategies can be developed for 

injury prevention. Seventy-nine percent of deaths are associated 

with injuries incurred during racing and training. Until recently fatality rates had slowly increased over time in California. Approximately 3 to 5 horses die per 1,000 thoroughbred race starts. The 

fatalities are just the tip of the iceberg. Because milder injuries 

cause many horses to leave racing after short careers, approximately 20 percent of racehorses leave racing every 3 months. 

Pathologic evidence indicates that many catastrophic, fatal musculoskeletal injuries are the acute manifestation of a sudden occurrence following preexisting milder injuries that develop over several weeks to several months. Mild injuries are typically repetitive, 

overuse injuries common to elite athletes of any species. Microscopic damage occurs when bones are loaded during exercise. When 

this damaged bone is replaced by healthy bone tissue through a 

normal process, there is a transient period of osteoporosis that 

makes bones highly susceptible to fracture even under normal racing and training conditions. Consequently horses are actually inadvertently susceptible in periods of time to injury under normal conditions; that is, without intentional abuse by trainers, owners, or 

veterinarians. 

The clinical science preceding fracture development may be subtle and difficult to detect. Consequently there is a need to optimize 

the ability to detect injuries during the early stages of development. Advanced imaging techniques and accessibility to advanced 

imaging equipment are continually improved; however, permitted 

medications likely mask signs of mild injury and contribute to injury development. 

Injuries, however, are multifactorial, with numerous contributing 

factors that create opportunities, however, for injury prevention, 

and I am optimistic that we can prevent injuries. Epidemiologic 

evidence indicates the horse characteristics, training and racing 

history, hoof management, horseshoe characteristics, preexisting 

musculoskeletal injuries and race characteristics all affect risk for 

injury. Key factors affect the magnitude and frequency of loading 

and can be managed for injury prevention. 

Racing jurisdictions are actively addressing the injury problem, 

at least in California. In fact, racehorse owners, trainers and veterinarians, officials, and industry regulators have embraced scientific evidence and implemented changes for the benefit of equine 

82 

welfare that countered long-standing traditions. Advanced imaging 

equipment has been installed at some major California racetracks 

to enhance early detections of injuries. Jurisdictions have mandated limitations on the height of a traction device, toe grabs, on 

horseshoes after a study demonstrated an association with increasing risk for injury with increasing height of toe grab. Recent scientific evidence indicated that a synthetic race surface imparts significantly lower loads and accelerations to the hoof during exercise. 

California mandated that all major racetracks replace traditional 

race surfaces with a synthetic race surface, at huge expense to 

racetrack management. And other racetracks have voluntarily replaced traditional race surfaces with synthetic surfaces. Initial preliminary injury data support the concept that race surface design 

and management have large potential for injury prevention. 

Racing communities are working collaboratively on a national 

level to address industry problems. National summits that addressed equine welfare in 2006 and 2008 were held by the Grayson 

Jockey Club Research Foundation. These strategic planning sessions brought together scientists and leaders from all facets, breeding to racing, workforce to management of the racehorse industry, 

to identify problems, recommend—develop recommendations for 

problem resolution. 

However, the racing industry consists of complicated parts. I am 

unaware of an industry model that identifies relationships between 

the components of the industry. It is conceivable that management 

decisions inadvertently affect racehorse training and management 

and thus have effects on equine health and welfare. The number 

of horses required to fulfill racing inventory while minimizing racehorse attrition is unknown. The underlying racehorse population is 

largely unknown, and medical data are difficult to retrieve. 

Further scientific research is desperately needed to guide the industry. Changes, for example, on racetrack surface design are 

largely based on marketing factors because of sparse scientific 

data. However, research funds are sparse relative to the size of the 

industry. Equine research proposals are not competitive for Federal 

funds because horses are not considered an agricultural product 

nor related to human health. Dissemination of findings needs to be 

broader. 

In summary, musculoskeletal injuries are devastating to equine 

welfare and to the thoroughbred racehorse industry. There are, 

however, great opportunities for intervention and injury prevention. The key to tracking the prevalence of injuries and the success 

or lack of success of interventions is identification of the underlying 

racehorse population. The industry should consider a mechanism 

for identification of horses that can be used for a horse’s medical 

record, location, exercise and movement, and racetrack horse inventory. The racehorse industry and Federal granting agencies need to 

make a substantial adjustment in research related to equine welfare and mandatory continuing education of those people in the industry. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before this committee. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Dr. Stover. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Stover follows:] 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

Mr. HILL. Dr. McIlwraith. 

STATEMENT OF WAYNE MCILWRAITH, PH.D., D.V.M., F.R.C.V.S., 

GAIL HOLMES EQUINE ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH CENTER, 

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 

Dr. MCILWRAITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. By way of introduction, I am director of the Gail 

Holmes Equine Orthopaedic Research Center at Colorado State 

University, and also hold the Barbara Cox Anthony University 

Chair in Orthopedics. I am also an active equine orthopedic surgeon, and so I am involved in the immediate repair and treatment 

of equine musculoskeletal injuries, although I am not too sure how 

good that is anymore based on the last panel. 

I feel privileged to work on these horses, but probably more importantly I direct a program to discover productive answers for prevention and early diagnosis of these injuries. As a personal example of my mixed job description, last weekend I did surgery on 

eight horses at the Equine Medical Center in California, and on 

Sunday I stayed in the hotel room to prepare the written statement 

for this hearing. 

I would like to comment on three critical areas that I think make 

a difference regarding catastrophic fractures in the thoroughbred 

racehorse and what we are doing to address these issues. There is 

no question, as Dr. Stover has previously said, that we have an unacceptable rate of injury in the U.S. And these three areas are 

areas where we have done some research and we have got ongoing 

efforts to try and solve. 

The first one is fracture prevention, and it is based on the 

premise of prior damage leading to catastrophic injury and early 

recognition of this damage being key to prevention. There is an accumulating body of evidence that the presence of microdamage 

could lead to catastrophic fractures. This is the same cycle of remodeling that Dr. Stover talked about. And there is evidence. This 

evidence is actually based originally on postmortem material done 

at UC Davis that Dr. Stover was involved in, and more recently in 

work on looking at the changes in bone with exercise that is being 

done experimentally at CSU. 

We have a number of ongoing research projects looking at factors 

that might predispose to this microdamage and therefore consequently fracture. These include joint and muscle modeling to calculate the real forces, generic analysis, as well as the effect of early 

exercise on bone changes. And interestingly enough we have found 

that early exercise can benefit the musculoskeletal system of young 

horses. 

The most exciting and important part of this work, in my opinion, is what we have done to diagnose this microdamage early, 

using blood biomarkers as well as novel imaging techniques. The 

principle of biomarkers is when the bone and cartilage degrades 

early in disease with this microdamage, degradation products are 

released, and these can be picked up by antibody tests that we 

have developed. 

We have recently completed a study that was funded by the 

Grayson Jockey Club Research Foundation looking at these biomarkers in a predictive fashion. We found that there was an eleVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-129 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
94 

vation of these markers in horses that sustained an injury 6 to 8 

weeks after the elevation. We are up to 70 percent predictability, 

but want to work to 100 percent. The long-term vision here is that 

we could use regular blood samples to analyze the biomarkers and 

identify a horse at risk. That horse could then go into a bone scan, 

and this has previously been shown to help diagnose early microdamage, or a CT to further define the problem. 

We have already saved horses with nuclear scintigraphy, and 

this early work was based on research of Dr. Stover identifying 

that stress fractures led to catastrophic fractures, and consequently 

if we diagnose those early stress fractures, we could diagnose a 

problem and stop catastrophic injury. 

Unfortunately, not all horses show lameness, and so the biomarkers, we think, are critical to screening the horse at risk. 

The second area I wanted to discuss is racetrack surfaces. There 

has been considerable discussion on synthetic tracks. I have been 

working with Dr. McPetersonat the University of Maine on developing objective means of evaluating racetrack surfaces. So we have 

created tests that reproduce the loads and speeds of a horse’s hoof 

at a gallop and measure the response on a surface area. We are 

also in the process of doing further research to set standards and 

make recommendations of optimal maintenance of both dirt and 

synthetic surfaces. This work was funded initially by the America 

Quarter Horse Association, and more recently by a grant from the 

Grayson Jockey Club Research Foundation, as well as contributions from selected racetracks. 

I am chair of the track surface subcommittee that developed out 

of the welfare summits, and we recently voted to establish a laboratory to provide individual analysis of both dirt and synthetic 

racetrack surfaces to give the feedback back to the superintendents 

of the racetracks. 

The third area, of course, is medication, which has been discussed previously by the previous panel. The American Association 

of Equine Practitioners initiated and coordinated our industry’s 

first ever racing medication summit in 2000. From this summit 

came the formation of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, and its mission is moving the racing industry to uniformity 

in the areas of medication policy, testing, security, and penalties. 

To date, 32 of 38 States have banned all race-day medication except the antibleeding medication Lasix. This policy was initiated by 

AAEP, whose main goal is the health and welfare of the horse. 

More recently the RMTC wrote a model rule to regulate anabolic 

steroids and recommended adoption by January 1, 2009. The new 

safety committee formed by the Jockey Club has already adopted 

this policy. And as you heard previously, 11 out of 38 States have 

already adopted this policy. 

In summary, these are three critical issues from my perspective 

as an equine orthopedic surgeon and researcher that are critical 

and are positive. These issues among many others have already 

been worked on, and there is ongoing progress in them. As veterinarians we continue to promote the health and welfare of every 

equine athlete. Thank you. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. McIlwraith follows:] 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

Mr. HILL. Dr. Scollay. 

STATEMENT OF MARY C. SCOLLAY, D.V.M., EQUINE MEDICAL 

DIRECTOR, KENTUCKY HORSE RACING AUTHORITY 

Dr. SCOLLAY. Mr. Chair and committee members, good afternoon. 

I served as racetrack regulatory veterinarian for 20 years and will 

begin serving as equine medical director to the Kentucky Horseracing Authority on July 8th, so you can either say I am on vacation or unemployed at the moment. 

I want to talk for a minute about the role of the regulatory veterinarian at the racetrack. The regulatory veterinarian is charged 

with preventing injury; mitigating injury should it occur; and affording prompt, humane euthanasia when an injury cannot be mitigated. Very simply, my obligation was to the horse, and I answered 

to my conscience. 

In order to fulfill my responsibility to the horse, my activities include pre- and postrace soundness evaluation; triage of racing injuries; medical recordkeeping; implementation of pre- and postrace 

testing programs; research collaboration with academic institutions; management of herd health; equine infectious disease and 

environmental disease issues; policy development and rulemaking, 

and liaison between horseman, racetrack management, governmental regulatory agencies, and private veterinary practitioners. 

As the focus of this panel is racing injuries, the following is a 

basic description of race-day injury prevention measures taken by 

regulatory veterinarians. Morning prerace exams are performed on 

all entered horses. Horses are then monitored by a veterinarian 

from the time they arrive in the paddock until they have safely 

exited the course. And this would include observation during the 

post parade, any activity in the starting gate, during the race, after 

finishing, and prior to returning to their barns. 

At any time up to the start of the race, the regulatory veterinarian has the authority to require a horse to be withdrawn for 

health, safety, or soundness concerns. And I can’t help but think 

in hearing horses of the past being referenced today, and having 

read Laura Hillebrand’s book on Sea Biscuit, that had he been entered in a race today, it is unlikely that the regulatory veterinarian 

on the track would have permitted him to run. 

Horses with questionable status postrace are reevaluated in a 

follow-up exam, and any horse determined to be injured or unsound 

is declared to be ineligible to enter until the decision has been addressed to the satisfaction of the regulatory veterinarian. This protocol might be compared to an individual being accompanied 

through each workday by a risk assessment advisor and emergency 

care physician. 

Racing regulatory veterinarians have maintained racing injury 

records for many years; however, there has been little commonality 

in the ways that records were established and maintained, making 

data analysis and information disclosure problematic. At the 2006 

Grayson Jockey Club Welfare and Safety Summit, I presented a 

proposal for a national standardized on-track injury reporting program that would provide an objective scientific approach to addressing the emotionally charged problem of racing injuries. The 

program was initiated June 1, 2007. Sixty racetracks have comVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-129 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
115 

mitted to reporting in 2008, and this number represents all but 

three racetracks that were invited to participate. 

The reporting racetracks represent a large number of race starts, 

but data submitted is representative of only those reporting tracks. 

To be a national program, all tracks must participate. Currently 

this program is voluntary, thus showing a consensus among the industry to participate, but reporting should be required for all premises that conduct pari-mutuel wagering on live thoroughbred racing. 

Since inception and through June 15, 2008, 2,755 reports have 

been submitted. These reports reflect a wide range of conditions 

ranging in severity from minor abrasions to fatal injuries. 

The on-track injury reporting program has been underwritten by 

the Jockey Club, and Incompass, a subsidiary of the Jockey Club 

Information Systems, has developed and will be launching a secure 

online reporting module. It is being provided as a service to the industry. There will be no user fees associated with reporting it to 

the database. 

Industry support has been strong. RCI, HBPA, Jockeys’ Guild, in 

addition to racing commissions, track management, individual owners and trainers, have endorsed the program. We will continue to 

reach out to them and others in our efforts to increase program 

participation. While initiated as a thoroughbred-specific system, 

the system is currently under review to identify data collection 

modifications that may be required for implementation in quarter 

horse racing. 

Phase 2 of the reporting program has been initiated as a pilot 

program and expands reporting to include training, postrace detection and nonrace-related injuries. The collection of comprehensive 

and reliable data regarding training injuries is substantially more 

complex than that of race-related injuries; however, scientific studies indicate that catastrophic racing injuries are the result of cumulative events, therefore injury occurrence must be tracked comprehensively if precursors to catastrophic injuries are to be identified. Medication usage out of competition must also be scrutinized. 

It is intended that this injury database will generate valid composite statistics that identify national injury rates. Beyond that it 

is hoped that this epidemiologic database will enhance injury prevention strategies. There is no end point for data collection. It is 

by design a standing program. With continued industry support 

this database will serve as a key scientific tool in protecting the 

health of the equine athlete. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Doctor. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Scollay follows:] 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

Mr. HILL. The panel should know that in about 5 to 20 minutes, 

somewhere there, we are going to be called for votes. So we will 

see how this comes along, and we will make decisions as facts 

present themselves. 

Ms. Conrad. 

STATEMENT OF ALLIE CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CANTER MID-ATLANTIC, GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 

Ms. CONRAD. Thank you, Congressman Hill and members of the 

committee. I am honored to be here to speak on behalf of the 

horses that you do not see on TV, those running on the bottom of 

the low-level claiming tracks. I am here to point out the issues we 

see every day so that they can be discussed by the esteemed members of this panel and resolved through an independent oversight 

agency. 

I am sure you are wondering what qualifies me to be sitting here 

amongst these panelists. I am qualified to be here because I rehabilitate and rehome racehorses from what is thought to be one of 

the most infamous tracks for breakdowns in the country, Charlestown, just 90 minutes from where we sit. I am qualified to be here 

because I touch these animals every day. I see the condition they 

are in every day. I am qualified to be here because I must make 

the heartbreaking decision to turn them away from our organization due to lack of financial resources. 

One thing made very clear to me is that racehorses are not protected from horrific ends by their pedigree. They are not protected 

by their high sales price at the auctions. They are certainly not 

protected by the money they win for owners. 

You can take a minute to look at the racing chart of this horse, 

11-year-old horse, running. He has been running his entire life. His 

name is Ask the Lord. A year ago he was running for $55,000 per 

race. He is now running for $7,500 and is most certainly running 

on injected joints. He will run again, and he will run again, and 

he will run again until he breaks down, in my opinion. He has been 

claimed and claimed and claimed. It is a terrible, terrible thing. 

We have cared for and rehomed sons and daughters of Derby 

winners. We have rescued horses who have won $1 million. None 

of it mattered once they could no longer perform. 

The only thing that protects a racehorse from a horrific death is 

having the good fortune of being owned and trained by caring, honest people. And there are caring people in this sport. And while I 

would like to acknowledge and thank these people, we are not here 

to talk about them. We are here to discuss the people that do not 

care, the people ruining what used to be the Sport of Kings. They 

are running their horses on injected joints to hide fractures. They 

are using claiming races to dump crippled horses. They are dumping their horses into low-end auctions when they can no longer perform. 

I have stood next to too many of these horses mangled by irresponsible decisions and have had them euthanized. These horses 

were not injured from a freak accident or a tragic misstep. They 

were injured over time with the assistance of trainers, owners and 

veterinarians. These horses were injected with legal and illegal 

substances, both anabolic and catabolic steroids—that would be 

126 

cortisone EPO, very highly illegal—race-day painkillers, and 

diuretics. They raced on fractures masked by joint injections, and 

they raced to exhaustion, but they always run as fast as their bodies will allow. It is the nature of the racehorse. 

I would like every person in this room to take a moment today 

to read the handout I have provided looking at our Michigan horses 

that we have euthanized. You can see the lives that were wasted. 

This is not speculation or hearsay; this is hard evidence of what 

is happening to our horses, and it is applicable to every low-level 

track in this country. 

Perhaps the most disturbing part of our hard work is that we are 

trying our best to clean up racing’s mess without financial support 

from the racing industry itself. An informal poll of five different 

nonprofits revealed that less than 5 percent of our funding came 

from racing itself. Consider this: The rehoming groups, there are 

several of them, many of them, thank goodness. We need more. 

They receive less than 5 percent from a multibillion-dollar industry 

to care for the horses that they have made their living from. 

Racing is not bothering to take care of its own horses, and they 

are allowing the public, often not even racing fans, to take care of 

the problems. This must change. It should be an owner’s responsibility to provide veterinary or surgical care when they injure a 

horse through racing. It should be their responsibility to maintain 

that horse during its rehabilitation. Funds to care for these animals, if they do not come from the owner and trainer, need to be 

set aside through some mechanism such as starting fees or percentage of purses. Caring for these animals should not be an afterthought, it should be the first thought. 

Racehorse rehoming programs are too scarce in this country. It 

is time to put programs in place at every track in the United 

States. It would not be difficult to do. To do anything less is a disservice to the horses and to the people who want the options to do 

the right thing. 

The New York Times article published on June 15th states that 

over 3,000 horses died at racing facilities in 2007. That included 

many breeds; however, not every track was reporting. I would like 

to respectfully object to this number. Nowhere are they accounting 

for the horses that pulled up, vanned off, and got sent to the sales. 

They are not accounting for the animals whose ironic misfortune 

was to die in my barn instead of the racetrack when X-rays of their 

joints revealed the abuses they have suffered were irreparable. 

This is happening daily, and this needs to stop. I am here to 

speak for the horses who cannot speak for themselves, and I am 

here to represent every group in this country dedicated to their 

welfare. I am here to implore racing to address this issue. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Ms. Conrad. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Conrad follows:] 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

Mr. HILL. Mr. Waldrop. 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER M. WALDROP, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, NATIONAL THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WALDROP. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitfield and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

speak on behalf of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, 

its 65 member racetracks, 40 horsemen’s groups, and 1 million individual supporters. NTRA is thoroughbreds’ only centralized authority representing virtually all industry stakeholders, including 

owners, breeders, trainers, racetracks, riders, racing fans, and veterinarians. As such, we serve the industry as a consensus builder 

around solutions to problems of national importance for the horseracing industry. 

With an industry as diverse as ours, consensus is often difficult; 

nonetheless, our stakeholders agree that the health and safety of 

our equine athletes is paramount to our sport. From its earliest 

days pari-mutuel wagering has partnered with State governments 

to sanction and regulate horseracing both as a sport and as a parimutuel wagering industry. State governments ensure the public of 

the integrity of our operations through independent oversight and 

verification. 

States also play a critical role in ensuring health, horse health, 

and safety. States regulate our industry through State racing commissions, and these individual commissions operate under the umbrella of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, or 

the RCI, which develops and promulgates national standards called 

model rules for racing. And the challenge of our State-regulated 

structure is to implement uniform rules in all 38 racing jurisdictions. 

Some are questioning whether our industry has the governing 

structure necessary to effect change. I can’t speak for the distant 

past, but I can tell you that recently this industry has been making 

great strides towards uniformity at the national level, and the 

NTRA has played an important catalyst to that change. 

One of the foremost examples of cooperative uniform solutions to 

industrywide challenges is the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. The RMTC is governed by a board of directors consisting 

of 23 industry stakeholders, including regulators, veterinarians, 

chemists, as well as owners, trainers, breeders and racetracks from 

all breeds. Working with the guidance from the RMTC, the RCI 

has developed a comprehensive set of model rules which govern the 

use of drugs and therapeutic medications in racing. These model 

rules have now been adopted in 32 of 38 racing jurisdictions, including all major racing States. 

The RMTC has also helped the RCI develop tough but standardized penalties for drug violations, and these tougher penalties are 

now in place in almost half of all States that conduct horseracing, 

with more States expected to adopt these penalties soon. 

Most recently we worked closely on a policy regarding anabolic 

steroids. With the full support of the industry, the RCI has called 

for all racing States to adopt a standardized rule removing anabolic 

steroids from racing and race training by the end of 2008. Some 28 

States are now in the process of removing anabolic steroids from 

169 

competition, with the remaining 10 expected to follow suit shortly. 

Importantly, in the case of anabolic steroids, we have made 

progress in a matter of months, not years, proving that we can act 

quickly, collectively and constructively. This industry is no longer 

a rudderless ship. 

Likewise, for several years we have been addressing equine 

health and safety on a national basis. In 2006, our industry initiated numerous national studies in areas such as injury reporting, 

track services, veterinary research, and equine injury prevention; 

hence the panelists that we have today. The Jockey Club’s Thoroughbred Safety Committee is the perfect example of cooperative 

work done to address our sports health and safety issues. In fact, 

you heard earlier from Mr. Marzelli more safety measures that 

have been recommended, and the NTRA strongly supports those 

and will help make sure that those changes are implemented. 

I have stressed to you the last thing this industry needs is another layer of regulation. A large Federal bureaucracy funded by 

yet another tax on our long-suffering customers is simply not what 

we need. 

We are making progress towards uniformity in drug testing and 

medication rules; removing steroids from racing competition; implementing a great injury reporting system, as you have heard; exploring new synthetic racetrack surfaces to reduce injuries; continuing to conduct industry-funded research into the cause of the 

equine injuries. 

The horseracing industry should be allowed to continue its efforts 

to build a more uniform and cohesive health and safety program 

for its participants. We at the NTRA and our industry stakeholders 

are uniquely qualified and fully committed to working through our 

sports complex issues as they relate to equine health and safety, 

relying on sound science and research. I believe that the NTRA’s 

leadership, plus improved drug and safety rules, more transparency, expanded research, coupled with the continued oversight 

of this committee and the States themselves is the best recipe for 

progress that we all see. Our horses and our fans deserve nothing 

less. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waldrop follows:] 

STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER M. WALDROP

Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking Member Whitfield, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and its 65 member racetracks, 40 horsemen’s groups 

and one million individual supporters. 

NTRA is Thoroughbred racing’s only centralized authority representing virtually 

all industry stakeholders, including owners, breeders, trainers, racetracks, riders, 

racing fans and veterinarians. As such, we serve the industry as a consensus builder 

around solutions to problems of national importance to the horseracing industry. 

With an industry as diverse as ours, consensus is sometimes difficult. Nonetheless, our stakeholders agree that the health and safety of our equine athletes is 

paramount to our sport. 

From its earliest days, pari-mutuel horseracing has partnered with state governments to sanction and regulate horse racing both as a sport and as a pari-mutuel 

wagering industry. State government insures the public of the integrity of our operations through independent oversight and verification. 

States regulate our industry through state racing commissions. These individual 

commissions operate under the umbrella of the Association of Racing Commissioners 

170 

International or RCI, which develops and promulgates national standards called 

model rules of racing. The challenge of our state regulated structure is to implement 

uniform rules in all 38 racing jurisdictions. 

Some are questioning whether our industry has the governing structure necessary 

to effect change. I can’t speak to the distant past but I can tell you that recently 

this industry has been making great strides towards uniformity at the national level 

and the NTRA has been an important catalyst for that change. 

One of the foremost examples of cooperative, uniform solutions to industry-wide 

challenges is the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. The RMTC is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of 23 industry stakeholder groups including 

state regulators, veterinarians, and chemists, as well as horse owners, trainers, 

breeders, and racetracks from all racing breeds. 

Working with guidance from the RMTC, the RCI has developed a comprehensive 

set of model rules which govern the use of drugs and therapeutic medications in racing. These model rules have now been adopted in 32 of 38 racing jurisdictions, including all major racing states. The RMTC has also helped the RCI develop tough 

but fair standardized penalties for drug violations. These tougher penalties are now 

in place in almost half of all states that conduct horseracing with more states expected to adopt the model penalties soon. 

Most recently we have worked closely on a policy regarding anabolic steroids. 

With the full support of our industry, the RCI has called for all racing states to 

adopt a standardized rule removing anabolic steroids from racing and race training 

by the end of 2008. Some 28 states are now in the process of removing anabolic 

steroids from competition, with the remaining 10 expected to follow suit shortly. 

Likewise, for several years we have been addressing equine health and safety 

issues on a national basis. In 2006, our industry initiated numerous national studies 

in areas such as injury reporting, track surfaces, veterinary research, and equine 

injury prevention programs. The Jockey Club’s Thoroughbred Safety Committee is 

a perfect example of the cooperative work being done to address our sport’s health 

and safety issues at the national level. In fact, as you heard earlier from Mr. 

Marzelli, more safety measures have been recommended and the NTRA will help 

in advocating for these changes. 

The last thing this industry needs is another layer of bureaucracy. A Department 

of Horse-Land Security funded by yet another tax on our long-suffering customers? 

No thanks. 

We are making progress towards uniformity in drug testing and medication rules; 

removing steroids from racing competition; implementing an injury reporting system; exploring new, synthetic track surfaces to reduce injuries; and continuing to 

conduct industry-funded research into the causes of equine injuries. 

The horseracing industry should be allowed to continue its efforts to build a more 

uniform and cohesive health and safety program for its participants. We at the 

NTRA and our industry stakeholders are uniquely qualified and fully committed to 

working through our sport’s complex issues as they relate to equine health and safety, relying on sound science and research. I believe that the NTRA’s leadership, plus 

improved drug and safety rules, more transparency and expanded research, coupled 

with continued oversight from this committee and the states is the best recipe for 

the progress we all seek. Our horses and our fans deserve no less. 

Mr. HILL. Thank you, panel members. We appreciate your attendance here and you taking the time to come before this committee. 

We have been called for votes. One of the skills that a Member 

of Congress has to have is to fly by the seat of your pants all the 

time. We apologize for this. But what I want to do is give every 

panel member the opportunity to ask one question, and then we 

will adjourn the committee. 

Ms. Conrad, I would like to start with you. Can you describe 

what your horses go through as they go through withdrawal from 

steroids and other drugs in their bodies when your organization 

rescues them? 

Ms. CONRAD. The problems we see, they vary depending what 

drugs they are on. Unfortunately we don’t have access to the vet 

records, so we don’t know exactly what they are on. We are workVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:50 Jun 16, 2010 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00176 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CWELLS1\HEARINGS\110-129 SCOM1 PsN: JIMC
171 

ing backwards. I would say the most damaging things we see are 

the corticosteroids, the injections, the systemwide steroids that are 

given. We see mass weight loss, mass hair loss, loss of condition, 

depression, lethargy. They go through a terrible, terrible withdrawal period. And it is not just the anabolic steroids. That is the 

buzzword that has been floating around. That is not the worst one, 

in my opinion. It is not a great steroid, but a lot of times on the 

low-level tracks is what is holding these horses together. 

Mr. HILL. Wasn’t Big Brown on steroids? 

Ms. CONRAD. From what I understand, yes. 

Mr. HILL. That is not what happened to him in the last race, is 

it, withdrawal from it? 

Ms. CONRAD. I do not know. I do not know. It was hot. It could 

have been a deep track. I don’t know. 

Mr. HILL. Dr. Soma, would you know the answer to that question? 

Dr. SOMA. Based on the last known administration, he wasn’t on 

any anabolic steroids at the time, based on the time frame between 

when he was—— 

Mr. HILL. Mr. Whitfield. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. I will say that Jack Van Berg has 

won more horses than any living trainer, who testified earlier and 

is back there. I asked him that question last night, and he said he 

thought it had to do more with the split hoof than anything else. 

So having said that, Mr. Waldrop, I would disagree with you in 

the sense that, yes, the NTRA does have a partnership with State 

government. It also has a partnership with the Federal Government in that the industry came and asked for the Interstate Horse 

Racing Act to be adopted. It came back and asked for the help of 

the Interstate—from the Federal Government dealing with the 

Wire Act and with Internet gambling, getting exemptions for that. 

And I don’t think it is unreasonable for the Federal Government 

to set minimum standards. The representative of the Jockey Club 

and you yourself have admitted that you do not have the enforcement mechanism to require anyone to do anything. And I think the 

first panel displayed very clearly that there are serious problems 

in the industry. 

I have talked to a lot of different racing authorities in each State. 

There is no agreement on the penalty levels of any of these socalled uniform rules. There is total confusion about the anabolic 

steroids. Dr. Kate Lynn, who is the expert, in my view, says that 

you cannot regulate them; they should be banned in their entirety. 

So I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Soma. I think you pointed 

out very clearly that Lasix and also anabolic steroids are not used 

so much for therapeutic reasons as they are for a performance 

enhancer. And other jurisdictions around the world do not allow 

anabolic steroids or Bute or Lasix. 

So with that we have other Members who have been here just 

as long as I have, so I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HILL. Mr. Stearns. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Conrad, you had mentioned that this system of steroids that 

are used, the blame goes to veterinarians, owners, and trainers. I 

think that is what you said; is that true? 

172 

Ms. CONRAD. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. I would ask each of the panel to the best of their 

personal opinion, where predominantly is the blame to go for this 

system of steroids. With the veterinarians, the owners, or the trainers or all three? Dr. Soma, just go down the line. 

Dr. SOMA. I think it is all three, because if a trainer—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I understand. We don’t have a lot of time. 

Dr. SOMA. All three, yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Stover. 

Dr. STOVER. Well, perhaps we should all take some responsibility. 

Mr. STEARNS. So all three are equally at fault, in your opinion? 

Aren’t the veterinarians just reacting to what the trainers request? 

Dr. STOVER. I think that is a difficult question to answer. I think 

we are all responsible for the horses’ welfare. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Next. 

Dr. MCILWRAITH. I agree. We are collectively responsible for their 

welfare. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Next. 

Dr. SCOLLAY. I would agree, but I would also add in racetrack 

management and other stakeholders. 

Mr. STEARNS. The pressure comes from them also? 

Dr. SCOLLAY. Sure, to fill races, get horses to run. If you are allotted stalls, you are expected to perform. And so there is no one 

group, it is everybody. 

Mr. STEARNS. Now, Ms. Conrad, you can actually put the blame 

on somebody here. Everybody is waffling on this and saying everybody is responsible. Surely you must, from your perspective, think 

there is one group that has a little more pressure than the others. 

All three can’t be equally at fault. 

Ms. CONRAD. Actually I think they can. It depends on if you have 

a young vet that shows up at the track and wants to make a living, 

and the trainer says—they find out a horse has a fracture. The 

trainer says, inject it, or I am not employing you any longer. They 

have to make a living. I mean, it is complex. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. Mr. Waldrop. 

Mr. WALDROP. We are all responsible. The industry as a whole 

let this practice continue too long, but we resolved in our commitment to stop it by the end of this year. 

Mr. HILL. OK. We have 5 minutes before we vote. 

Mr. Pitts. 

Mr. PITTS. One more question. Ms. Conrad, your stories, the 

tragic stories, are very compelling. You explain the problem. Could 

you tell us a little bit more about the solution that you envision 

and the actions that are necessary to reach it? 

Ms. CONRAD. Echoing the panel, the first panel, if you get rid of 

a lot of these drugs, these horses will not be able to run. The problem will address itself over time. It will address the soundness 

issues. If a horse’s bloodline tends towards ankle problems, and you 

can no longer inject that joint 2 days before it runs, that horse is 

not going to run any longer. That horse is not going to be a valuable commodity as a breeding animal. That will resolve a lot of the 

problems. Funding for the groups that take care of the animals 

173 

that aren’t getting taken care of, that is going to solve—it is a mandate, but it is needed. It is needed right now. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HILL. If I could ask the Committee to give unanimous consent to have the following organizations’ statements entered into 

the—their statements entered into the record. It is the American 

Association of Equine Practitioners, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Cosigners and Commercial Breeder’s Association, 

Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. Without objection, I 

would like to have these written statements entered into the 

record. 

[The information was unavailable at the time of printing.] 

Mr. HILL. The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

174 

175 

176 

177 

178 

179 

180 

181 

182 

ARTHUR HANCOCK, RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM HON. BOBBY L. 

RUSH

1. You are vocal in support of a central league to govern horse racing. 

How does Congress help get the sport there? 

I can only tell you that this industry is in big trouble and that our only hope for 

survival is for us to have a central league. There are 38 racing jurisdictions and 

there is only one way for us to establish this league, and that is through Congress. 

We cannot operate like Nascar, because racing is governed by the state in which 

it takes place, and every state has its own rules and regulations. Also, our industry 

organizations have absolutely no control over these states and their racing rules. 

Therefore, we are a rudderless ship, and we need help. We need Congress to fix the 

rudder and only you all know how to do that. I can only suggest that you re-open 

the Horse Racing Act of 1978 and eliminate trainers from the language. Owners 

must have the right to dictate their own destiny. They are the ones who make it 

all happen and who take all the risks. Also, Congress can issue ‘‘guidelines for excellence’’ that must be adhered to by the respective states. We don’t need to re-invent 

the wheel, just do what the rest of the world does regarding rules, regulations, and 

medication policies. This can be simply done if Congress so chooses, I believe, by 

re-visiting and changing for the better the Horse Racing Act of 1978. The word 

‘‘horsemen’’, which is defined as owners and trainers, needs to be changed to ‘‘racehorse owners’’. This will give the owners the right to run their own business and 

it will permit us to establish a central league to govern horse racing. 

2. You’re a 4th generation horseman. Can you talk about how the Thoroughbred breed has changed over the years? 

The Thoroughbred breed has become weaker over the years. Horses make nearly 

50% fewer starts than they did 50 years ago and one of the main reasons for this 

is the permissive medication policy in America. It permits horses to run big races 

who normally couldn’t win a moderate race, and these chemical horses go to the 

breeding shed. The results are clear. It’s disgraceful to our industry and it is a national disgrace as well. 

3. You’re famous for owning the late SUNDAY SILENCE, one of the alltime great racehorses. You sold him to Japanese interests, and he single 

handedly put Japanese breeding on the map as a great sire, and his pedigree was much different from the current bloodlines that are so popular 

in today’s commercial breeding circles. Looking back, what are your 

thoughts on SUNDAY SILENCE as a sire and what he could have contributed to American breeding? 

SUNDAY SILENCE was a world class sire and would have greatly contributed 

to American breeding. It is sad that American breeders did not realize this, as the 

Japanese did. One of the reasons for this is that the same clique that has brought 

racing to the state it is in today, spread the word that SUNDAY SILENCE was 

merely a freak race horse and that he would not make a good stallion. Consequently, people shied away from taking shares in him which was a tragedy. He 

was a complete outcross and would have done us proud. These are the same people 

who long to preserve the status quo because they want no interference with their 

respective domains of self-perceived power. 

183 

184 

185 

186 

187 

188 

189 

190 

191 

192 

193 

194 

195 

WAYNE MCILWRAITH, RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM HON. BOBBY

L. RUSH

Do you believe anabolic steroids should be completely banned except for 

very narrow, therapeutic circumstances? 

Yes. 

Do you believe lasix should be banned? 

Although lasix has been shown to reduce exercise induced pulmonary hemorrhage 

(EIPH), it has also been shown to be performance enhancing and in my opinion it 

should be banned on race day. Presently, nearly all horses race on it and we are 

out of step with the rest of the world. 

Do you believe that analgesic medications such as bute should be banned 

or severely restricted? 

Currently no non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are allowed to be used 

on race day. The current laws regarding a certain allowable level are good in my 

opinion. 

Do you believe Thoroughbreds are becoming more fragile? 

Comparative figures for the number of starts would insinuate strongly that the 

durability of racehorses is less. There is little specific data on fragility but this 

needs to be looked at. 

Are breakdowns more frequent? 

Data is available from the California post mortem program which would indicate 

that breakdowns are not becoming more frequent but we are not lowering the incidence. Recent data over the past year insinuates a decrease from 2 to 1.5 per 1000 

starts with synthetic race tracks. 

Do we have accurate data to make such determinations? 

Yes such data was presented at the Welfare and Safety Summit in October 2006 

by Dr. Stover of UC Davis (also on the panel). 

Do we have the technology to prevent more breakdowns from happening? 

Is it feasible to detect micro-fractures before they get worse? 

Yes. Nuclear scintigraphy (bone scanning) and computer tomography (CT) have 

the ability to detect microdamage but are not practical as screening tools. Our recent work at Colorado State University in a project in southern California and funded by the Grayson-Jockey Club Foundation showed that we can detect much of this 

damage with blood biomarkers and this has the potential to be a useful, practical 

technique for identifying the horse at risk. 

Many horsemen say that horse’s bones aren’t as strong as they used to 

be or that their bodies are just too big, because of breeding and handling. 

What does the science say? 

There is no scientific evidence at this stage to say the bones are not as strong 

or that bodies are just too big. Scientific evaluation of this is difficult but should 

be attempted in the future. 

What do you recommend industry can do to help prevent catastrophic 

breakdowns and other injuries at racetracks? 

Do the science. The principal areas where we have real possibilities are 1. Identifying prior damage that leads to catastrophic injury and early recognition of this 

damage by the use of micro blood biomarkers and novel imaging techniques. 2. Scientific evaluation of various racetracks rather than unrealistic expectations for synthetic tracks. Dr. Mick Peterson, from the University of Maine, has developed an 

objective method of assessing the tracks and this machine should be available at all 

racetracks. 3. Strict rules on medication, and 4. Further work on durability of race 

horses as has been started by the Durability Index that came out of the 2006 Racing 

Summit. 

MARY C. SCOLLAY, RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM HON. BOBBY L. 

RUSH

1. Do you believe anabolic steroids should be completely banned except 

for very narrow, therapeutic circumstances? 

Yes, this position is reflected in the language of the anabolic steroid rule currently 

under review by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. There is no legitimate indication for the administration of anabolic androgenic steroids in healthy horses in 

training and/or racing. 

2. Do you believe lasix should be banned? 

Our understanding of the effects of furosemide has evolved to include concerns 

about its ability to enhance performance. Until ongoing research data is analyzed 

196 

and published, I recommend taking no action to ban furosemide. I do, however, believe that the jurisdictions currently permitting a maximum dose of 500 mg (10 ml) 

should reduce that maximum to 250 mg (5 ml). 

Currently, furosemide is the only medication that has been demonstrated to reduce the incidence and/or severity of exercise induced pulmonary hemorrhage. Recognizing that upwards of 85% of horses performing at maximal exertion will experience EIPH (and this extends beyond Thoroughbred racing to other disciplines such 

as barrel racing and competitive pulling events for draft horses) I believe it would 

be inhumane to withdraw the medication given its documented ability to prevent 

or mitigate the onset of the condition. 

The medication is not without negative side effects including dehydration, electrolyte imbalances, and muscle cramping. If an alternative medication were determined to be as, or more effective, and without the associated adverse events, then 

yes, I would recommend furosemide be banned. Pending the development of such 

a medication, I believe that furosemide should be closely regulated, but not banned. 

3. Do you believe that analgesic medications such as bute should be 

banned or severely restricted? 

I believe that we need to understand the scope of the use of analgesic medications 

before we could address restricting or banning their use. There has been a tremendous focus on race day medication, but the use of medications outside of competition 

has not been examined. If we accept that catastrophic injuries are the cumulative 

result of minor repetitive injuries (some clinically apparent, others perhaps not), 

then do we not need to understand if the administration of analgesics outside of 

competition has any association with the race-related catastrophic injury? 

I would strongly oppose a ban on analgesic medications; they have a significant 

therapeutic role when used judiciously. We need to identify the boundaries of ‘judicious’ use to prevent the masking (deliberate or otherwise) of conditions which may 

be an early warning for more severe conditions to follow. 

4. Do you believe Thoroughbreds are becoming more fragile? 

No, I believe we are placing increased athletic demands on them which in turn 

put them at increased risk of injury. 

5. Are breakdowns more frequent? 

We have no way of knowing. The data does not exist. There is the appearance 

that racing injuries are occurring more frequently, but that may be a media related 

phenomenon. When twelve race cards can be viewed from a single site, the likelihood of observing a horse being injured has increased by twelve fold. When the only 

way to see a horse race was to go to the racetrack to watch the live, on-site racing, 

the exposure of a racing injury was considerably reduced when compared to the current environment that includes internet, simulcasting, TVG, HRTV, etc. 

Moving forward, this is one of the questions that the Equine Injury Database will 

be able to answer. Previous data cannot be recaptured, but questions like this one 

will be able to be answered-factually-as the database accumulates information over 

time. 

6. The Jockey Club recently announced the launching of a nation-wide 

database that tracks Thoroughbred injuries. Are tracks required to report 

injuries to this database or is participation voluntary? Are injuries from 

training also reported? 

Participation is voluntary, but the industry response has been overwhelmingly 

positive. This initiative alone proves that the racing industry is able to achieve consensus and speak with a unified voice. I estimate that greater than 80% of the race 

starts in North America in 2008 will be represented in the Equine Injury Database, 

and I further expect that by the end of 2009, there will be 100% participation. 

The program is being expanded to include reporting of health conditions-injuries, 

illness, etc-outside of the scope of a race. Training injuries are now being reported 

in several jurisdictions as part of a pilot project. 

7. Before the data present a more clear picture, what immediate recommendations do you have for the industry to help prevent catastrophic 

breakdowns and other injuries at racetracks? 

I would urge those in authority to base decisions on fact and not speculation. 

There have been assertions brought forth in many forums that are easily refutable 

by scientific data. The issue of racing injuries has been driven by emotion. That 

emotion has served as a catalyst for the industry to seek change-but the change 

must be based on an objective, scientific foundation or we risk doing something differently, but not better. 

There should be a requirement that all entered horses undergo a pre-race exam 

by a regulatory veterinarian. There should be follow up exams post race on any 

horse whose condition was questionable immediately following the running of a race. 

Any horse determined to be injured/unsound/ or otherwise unfit for competition 

197 

should not be permitted to enter to race until having been released by a regulatory 

veterinarian. A horse working in front of the regulatory veterinarian for release 

from the Vets’ List should be in compliance with race day medication rules and be 

subjected to post-work testing to confirm compliance. Information collected and 

maintained by regulatory veterinarians with regard to the racing soundness of 

horses should be able to be shared between racing jurisdictions without fear of legal 

repercussions with respect to violation of confidentiality. 

There should be penalties in place (of sufficient severity as to serve as a deterrent) for a trainer who attempts or succeeds in entering a Vet Listed horse in another jurisdiction. 

There should be accountability for those trainers whose horses are disproportionately represented on the Vets’ List for being unsound/injured/ or otherwise unfit to 

race. 

198 

199 

200 

201 

Æ