Lazarus on Anti-Doping Drug Control and HISA
Little by little, the pieces are being sorted into place for the Anti-Doping and Drug Control (ADMC) component of the Horseracing Safety and Integrity Act, set to go into effect early next year.
Last month, that program was designated an official body to run it — specifically, Drug Free Sports International, an organization that has helped administer drug testing programs for a variety of major sports leagues. of human.
Then, last week, the draft ADMC rule was put out for public comment. These draft rules can be found here.
Adolpho Birch, HISA ADMC Committee Chair, also issued a letter outlining the key changes to the revised ADMC rules compared to the draft rule issued earlier, when the US Anti-Doping Agency United States (USADA) appears to be the implementing agency of HISA.
In the letter, Birch points out that possible sanctions for controlled drug violations have been reduced, to make a clearer distinction between drug use violations when using drugs. Substance use and controlled substance abuse violations.
Additionally, in the event of a positive test result and a request for analysis of sample B, enforcement personnel will select a laboratory, possibly a different laboratory from the one that was initially analyzed.
Tuesday morning, HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus hosted a media Q&A session to further discuss the draft ADMC rule. The following is a summary of her comments.
Responsible person
Lazarus provided interesting context for the reasons that underlie the need for trainers and owners to maintain daily treatment records for their horses, a basic outline. Version can be found here.
The registry system appoints a responsible person for each horse. And that puts a heavy burden on the trainer or responsible owner to ensure that they keep detailed records and documentation – essentially, operating a “tight ship” like the Lazarus said.
Therefore, in the event of a drug violation, HISA may require these documents and records, “and those records may become part of the case,” Lazarus said.
In this regard, Lazarus also expanded the HISA “housing” program, essentially ensuring that all horses under HISA transfers are counted at all times.
During the first phase of the housing program, which is expected to take effect early next year, responsible holders are required to submit a residency application if they move horses from a racetrack or registered facility.
“If you take your horse to a private establishment or a private ranch, you must notify us,” Lazarus said. And there can be penalties for non-compliance, including possible fines, if an application is not filed.
However, failure to present horses for drug testing results in a violation of the presumption for two years (pending trial), regardless of test results.
“If you take a horse off a public racetrack and we know where the horse is, you don’t tell us where the horse is with the record, we look for the horse, we contact the Horseman. covered – we will have access to all of these through our database – and they do not generate [the horse] Lazarus said.
Ultimately, Lazarus said, the plan is for a system to determine the whereabouts of any protected horse at any given time.
“But one of the things we wanted to understand and see was if we could really extract that data from existing sources without putting a lot of paperwork on the participants,” she said.
Records management
Before diving into this section, there are some important nomenclature changes to note, compared with the use of the “major” and “minor” substances in the previous draft.
Under these revised draft rules, “prohibited substance” is an umbrella term for anything that shouldn’t be in a horse on race day. Prohibited substances refer to doping substances, while controlled drugs are essentially therapeutic substances.
A list of prohibited and controlled substances, along with possible sanctions in the event of a positive test result, can be found here.
Lazarus provided a snapshot of the records management process.
In the event of a positive horse test for a banned substance such as steroids, anabolic agents or growth hormone, the person responsible will be suspended immediately until the hearing takes place.
“Assume that this is a two-year sanction,” Lazarus said.
However, that two-year penalty could be reduced if the person responsible can show “no fault or no serious fault,” Lazarus said, adding that penalty reductions are anticipated. when the responsible person demonstrated how the substance entered the horse’s system in the first place.
“So for example, if you are in a situation of a steroid [positive] and you want to argue that someone injected steroids into a horse without your knowledge, you have to actually prove that [scenario] for the confidence and satisfaction of the hearing panel,” said Lazarus, who also explained how four-year restraining orders could be possible in the case of “more aggravating situations” such as trafficking, evasion of employment. sample collection and sample tampering.
Publicly disclose test results
According to USADA’s version of the ADMC program, a rather controversial component concerns how form A results are not necessarily automatically disclosed to the public.
But Lazarus pointed to a change of tone, with sample A results now actually set to be available online.
“You will know the person covered, the horse covered and the substance detected in the sample,” she said. “Basically you will be able to track the incident as it goes through the different steps. [For example,] If there is a hearing to lift the suspension that will be recorded, the decision will be recorded,” she added.
Shortened Judgment Schedule
Lazarus said the time to hear and hear cases would be “incredibly reduced” compared with the current model at the individual state level.
For example, after a hearing, the arbitrator would have to make a decision within 14 days. During the appeals process, defendants have 30 days to file an appeal against the charges, and thereafter, a hearing must take place within 60 days of the initial notice.
When asked if the tightening system would provide enough time for defendants to come up with a fair defense – especially in complex cases – Lazarus said the cases would be heard. on an individual basis, with an effort being made in “exceptional circumstances” not to disrupt the proceedings. .
That said, a truncated timeline — along with any temporary suspensions in the event of a drug violation — can also act as an incentive lever, Lazarus said.
“If you’re facing a two-year sentence and it’s a drug, you’ll be suspended for the time it takes to schedule the case, and so they’ll likely be very motivated to get a quick trial. , so it also protects the participants,” she said.
Registration number
According to Lazarus, nearly half of the horses and insureds that needed to be registered by July 1 did so. However, racing offices will soon issue a “could not race” notice if a horse entered in the race is not registered with HISA, she said.
This is intended as more of a reminder, Lazarus said, as it doesn’t necessarily affect a horse’s race eligibility, as long as the horse is actually registered before July 1.
Drug test
Lazarus said the actual ADMC test program is still under development, and so the specifics are slim.
That said, in the past, various officials have suggested that under HISA, all winners won’t necessarily be tested after the race – something different from the current model.
However, Lazarus points out that indeed, the post-race drug testing network can still contain all the winners.
“We’re trying to balance a robust testing program that’s deterrent with the intelligence-based advantages you get when you look at intelligence metrics,” Lazarus said.