A congressional hearing Friday to discuss federal legislation that would nationalize some aspects of racing regulation and ban the race-day use of the anti-bleeding medication furosemide yielded no consensus from either the racing industry or legislators on the bill, underscoring the slim chances for the legislation’s passage anytime soon. The hearing was largely a replay of other congressional hearings on issues that have divided the racing industry for decades, namely, the effort to align racing states under one set of rules and the controversial use of furosemide, commonly known as Lasix, on race day. It was the first hearing to discuss a bill that was introduced last year, but one in a string of hearings over the past 10 years to delve into racing’s regulation, with a typical cast of characters reiterating many of the same arguments. The bill, introduced by U.S. Reps. Andy Barr (R.-Ky.) and Paul Tonko (D.-N.Y.) would appoint the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, a private, nonprofit company, to oversee the regulation and enforcement of the industry’s medication policies. The provision explicitly banning the race-day use of Lasix was added last year in order to gain the support of Frank Stronach, the owner and breeder who controls The Stronach Group, a vertically integrated private racing company. Much of the question-and-answer session of the hearing focused on the use of Lasix, with supporters claiming that the medication is an effective way to treat bleeding in the lungs, and opponents arguing mostly along the lines that the use of the diuretic presents a public-perception problem for the sport’s bettors and international buyers of racehorses. Lasix is legal to use on race day in every North American racing jurisdiction but is banned on race day in most other major racing countries. Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R.-Ill.) began by asking questions designed to point out that most horsemen consider use of the drug to be a humane response to bleeding in the lungs. He asked one of the witnesses invited to testify, Kitty Block, president of the Humane Society of the United States, why race-day use of the drug should be banned given the belief that the drug mitigates a health problem, and Block responded by saying that “injecting a horse in the neck” on race day is “not a perception you want projected.” “In that case, maybe optics should take second place to the protection of horses,” Kinzinger responded. Supporters of the ban countered that the problem of bleeding has been overstated, and that the phasing out of the race-day use of the drug would not lead to widespread problems in the industry, citing the experiences of foreign jurisdictions. “The concern that the sky will fall if we prohibit Lasix is wrong,” said Craig Fravel, chief executive of the Breeders’ Cup, in response to a question from Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D.-Ill.), who indicated in her remarks that she was opposed to the race-day use of Lasix. The time devoted to the back-and-forth over Lasix underlines one of the most significant hurdles facing the bill in a Congress in which many House members are facing tough re-election races this fall. In the past, most racing lobbyists have said that efforts to pass legislation similar to the bill introduced last year have little chance if the racing industry does not provide a united front. Witnesses were equally divided on the other main component of the bill, the appointment of USADA as a national overseer of the sport’s policies. Proponents of the current state-by-state regulatory system contended at the hearing that regulators are doing an adequate job of overseeing the sport, though those supporters also acknowledged that racing states are not all aligned under one set of rules, despite decades of effort to accomplish national uniformity. Supporters of the bill used that failure as a talking point. “Everyone here said we need uniformity,” said Stuart Janney, vice chairman of The Jockey Club, which has led a coalition of groups in support of the legislation. “This is the quickest way.” Fravel said that advances in drug development and evasion techniques necessitated a more “modern” approach to racing regulation. “If we started from scratch, would we have 38 different rule-making and enforcement bodies?” said Fravel, referencing the number of racing jurisdictions in the United States. “I think it’s clear we would not.” But legislators remain divided as well, especially those Republicans weighing whether to endorse legislation that would appear on its face to increase the role of the federal government, a philosophical no-no to most conservative members. “I do not like regulations at all. I mean, I think we are equipped to regulate ourselves. I hope everyone understands that,” said Markwayne Mullin (R.-Okla.), who noted that many horses travel to multiple states in a year to perform. “But Congress does have a role when it starts crossing state lines.” Mullin later said the racing industry has work to do to improve its regulation, with a statement that may as well have summed up Congress’s role in advancing the legislation. “I feel like we’re a long way from getting this fixed,” Mullin said.