Drug debate comes out in the open

SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. – Conflict over a federal bill that would install the United States Anti-Doping Agency as the overseer of U.S. racing’s drug policies spilled out into the open on Tuesday at the Saratoga Institute on Equine, Racing, and Gaming Law Conference in Saratoga Springs.

Discussion during separate panels at the two-day conference, put on by the Albany Law School Government Law Center, revealed the deep divide between supporters and opponents of the legislation, which was written by the Jockey Club and a coalition of like-minded organizations and introduced into the House of Representatives earlier this year. The tone of the discussion illustrated that the two sides are not close to resolving their differences, a chasm that is likely to doom any effort to pass the bill this year.

Three speakers at the conference who oppose the bill contended that the effort behind the legislation rested solely on the desire to ban the raceday use of the regulated anti-bleeding medication furosemide. Supporters, including the general counsel of the Jockey Club, countered that U.S. racing states have failed to make meaningful progress in adopting the National Uniform Medication Program, which contains sections relating to the use of therapeutic and illegal medications, standards for lab accreditation, a uniform penalty scheme, and regulations over the administration of furosemide.

“The glass isn’t even half full,” said Marc Summers, the Jockey Club general counsel, during a panel that dealt solely with the federal legislation after outlining what he contended was slow and uneven progress among supporters of the state-by-state approach.

The bill would create a panel controlled by USADA that would set medication policies for all 38 U.S. racing jurisdictions. USADA would then monitor the individual jurisdictions for compliance with the code while directing a national drug-testing program and research into drugs and drug-testing methods. Any state that does not comply with the code would lose the protection of the Interstate Horse Racing Act, which provides the rights for interstate simulcast and internet betting (see www.drf.com/news/usada-under-microscope for an earlier article detailing USADA and the bill).

Some speakers opposed to the bill attacked USADA itself. Richard Violette, the president of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, said that USADA would be taking on an entirely new role if it was installed as the industry’s drug czar, noting that the group has not had a role in setting policies for Olympic sports or settling on the scientific significance of test results sometimes measured at the picogram level. Under the current Olympic regulatory structure, USADA enforces an international code developed by the World Anti-Doping Agency for athletes in the U.S. Olympic program.

“They are the cops, they are the enforcers,” Violette said. “They do not make any regulations. They do not deal with making rules. They do not deal with picograms.”

Ed Martin, the president of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, attempted to make the case that racing states currently do a better job at protecting racing than USADA could be expected to do. Like Violette, he also was highly critical of language used by supporters of the bill that he said inaccurately portrayed the state of drug-testing and prevalence of drug abuse in the sport.

“This political campaign is divisive and does not advance a common goal that everyone here has,” Martin said.

While opposition to the bill from some quarters has been well known, the law conference was perhaps the first this year in which opponents publicly attacked the other’s positions. While the Jockey Club attempted to build a case for consensus at its own conference on Sunday, the law conference two days later revealed a starkly different universe, with the conflict almost certainly seriously jeopardizing the bill’s chances.

“You should always speak with one voice,” said Jay Hickey, the president of the American Horse Council, who was speaking on a separate panel and not specifically about the federal bill. “The lack of consensus on any issue makes it very, very difficult [to pass legislation]. Not just the racing industry. Any industry.”