CHRB at Center of Another Scandal

Horse owner Les Blake is considering legal remedies after Dr. Rick Arthur, the California Horse Racing Board, and Hollywood Park may have failed to follow proper protocol regarding a heel nerving procedure performed on a racehorse by Dr. Arthur. That horse, Refinery, was later claimed on behalf of Blake by trainer Dan McFarlane on December 2, 2006, but both were unaware the horse had undergone the procedure.

Heel nerving, or more properly posterior digital neurectomy, is a surgical procedure in which the nerve supply to the navicular area is removed which desensitizes a portion of the foot. The connections became aware the horse had been nerved only after attempting to enter a race in Arizona where it is illegal for nerved horses to compete.

Dr. Arthur performed the procedure as a private vet before becoming the CHRB Equine Medical Director.

California law requires approval from the State Vet before nerving a horse (See title 4 section 1850 of California Administrative Code). According Larry De Respino, attorney for Mr. Blake, the CHRB has provided no record that Dr. Arthur received approval before performing the procedure. Dr. Arthur reportedly did notify CHRB Official Vet after the procedure, which is also required by law.

Refinery was claimed during the Hollywood Park meet, however Hollywood Park racing office officials could not be reached for comment. According to Santa Anita racing office staff, there is not a separate heel nerve list, but horses that have been heel nerved are included on the vet list for tracking purposes. Whether this is a new tracking procedure is unclear. According to CHRB staff, all additions, changes and removals to or from the vet list are the responsibility of CHRB’s State Vets and are provided to each track’s racing office.

Record that the horse had been nerved had previously been attached to the horse’s registration papers. However, according to Santa Anita racing office staff, the horse was only added to the vet list indicating the horse had been nerved after this matter came to light in the last few days, presumably at the behest of the CHRB or the State Vet. That such a list is maintained by the racing secretary is also required by law.

Notice Once Again at Issue
De Respino is primarily concerned with the inability of his client to reasonably know a horse had undergone such a procedure before dropping a claim. “The intent of the law is to provide notice. Had my client been aware of the nerving, he never would have claimed the horse,” De Respino said.

The CHRB has been challenged with regard to offering proper notice in the past. During the CHRB medication violation cover-up scandal the CHRB fined a vet for the violation without naming the horse or race in question. Later when the matter came to light CHRB Executive Director Ingrid Fermin stated there could be no appeal of the race’s outcome because “any protest of the result would have had to come within 72 hours of the race.”