CHRB System of Releasing Rulings Fails to Give Notice

What do the connections know? And when do they know it? Those are the two most vital aspects to the timely reporting of a California Horse Racing Board ruling which could be grounds for a protest. This takes on further significance when considering a Thoroughbred Times story today. It reported the California Horse Racing Board has fined a veterinarian for falsifying the time on a bleeder medication report. The infraction occurred before the September 3, 2005 Palomar Breeders’ Cup Handicap (G2) at Del Mar. The horse was Intercontinental, who went on to be named champion turf mare. CHRB’s release of the infraction appears to make owners’ timely protests difficult or even impossible when challenging the outcome of the race within the time limit.

Frank Moore, Chief Investigator for the CHRB, said barn security guards are employed by the tracks for purposes of monitoring backstretch activity. Thoroughbred Owners of California also purchased digital video cameras. The security guards record activities related to certain designated races, such as memorializing on tape the administration of drugs to graded stakes entrants. One such camera reportedly recorded the violation. The time code, which is a real-time stamp on the tape, showed a vet administering medication after a rules-imposed deadline. It is unclear the control CHRB has over the guards, or if the guards have a duty to the CHRB, or if they merely have a duty to the tracks themselves.

When CHRB first conceived these particular provisions, its task force developed it with the intent to fill the security guards’ positions with those who have knowledge of horse racing, Mr. Moore said. After an extensive search, almost no one on the backstretch wanted such a thankless job of policing their compatriots. Tracks then contracted security guards without horse-specific knowledge from outside agencies. Now, security guards go through a training program for imparting the specialized knowledge of their tasks.

The guards monitoring the Intercontinental infraction incident may have been inadequately trained to recognize conditions such as this, according to Mr. Moore. Guards have now undergone more training since this occurrence last fall.

Mike Marten, CHRB Public Information Officer, said any protest of a race must come within 72 hours of the relevant information being "released". In the article published in the Thoroughbred Times, CHRB Executive Director Ingrid Fermin says, "Any protest of the result would have had to come within 72 hours of the race..." Mr. Marten stated that Ms. Fermin's assertion was incorrect and that in fact the 72 hour clock begins running when the information is released. The Thoroughbred Times article states and Mr. Marten confirmed the information was released on February 16th on the CHRB website. When asked specifically where the release was located on the website, Mr. Marten indicated an Official Ruling dated 10/15/2005. Mr. Marten also stated the CHRB website is the only place such information is made public and that industry insiders are aware of this.

Mr. Marten did not elaborate on why the ruling was dated 10/15/05 if it was made public on 2/16/06. He could not be reach for comment after office hours to offer clarification. Also, the ruling does not indicate the horse or race in question.

If the ruling occurred on 10/15/05, but was not released until 2/16/06, other questions about transparency arise. First, given that the ruling only states the date of the infraction and does not indicate the race or horse affected, connections would be precluded from knowledge, precluded from filing the protest and thus precluded from the opportunity to go through the process, possibly to claim additional purse money awarded to a horse that should have scratched. Also, the ruling is buried. It is located on the CHRB website under the Santa Anita rulings section. That is a subset of Stewards Rulings which is a subset of Administrative Hearings. But the infraction took place at Del Mar. Mr. Marten’s explanation for this is that the rulings are filed under the race meeting being conducted during the hearing, not the infraction’s location. Regardless, affected owners would be unlikely to find the information given its needle-in-haystack residence.