[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

A REVIEW OF EFFORTS TO PROTECT JOCKEYS AND HORSES IN HORSERACING

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

APRIL 30, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-140

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-795 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MARY BONO MACK, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG WALDEN, Oregon BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas
Vice Chairman DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Islands
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
Subcommittee on Health

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
Chairman
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina LOIS CAPPS, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JIM MATHESON, Utah
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana officio)
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 1
Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, opening statement.............................. 4
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Jim Gerlach, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 7
Hon. Patrick Meehan, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 8

Witnesses

Gary Stevens, Hall of Fame Jockey................................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Arthur B. Hancock, III, Thoroughbred Owner....................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Gretchen Jackson, Thoroughbred Owner of the 2006 Kentucky Derby
winner, Barbaro................................................ 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
George W. Strawbridge, Jr., Thoroughbred Owner................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Kenny McPeek, Trainer............................................ 41
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Dr. Kathryn Papp, DVM, Hillcrest Meadow Equine Services, LLC,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania....................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Glenn Thompson, Trainer and Author: ``The Tradition of Cheating
at the Sport of Kings''........................................ 53
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Dr. Gregory Ferraro, DVM, Professor of Veterinary Medicine, and
Director, Center for Equine Health, School of Veterinary
Medicine, University of California, Davis...................... 60
Prepared statement........................................... 61

Submitted Material

Statement of Senator Tom Udall, submitted by Mr. Pitts........... 73
Statement of New Jersey Equine Clinic, submitted by Mr. Pitts.... 78
Publication entitled, ``Clinical Guidelines for Veterinarians
Practicing in a Pari-Mutuel Environment,'' from American
Association of Equine Practitioners, submitted by Mr. Pitts.... 81
White paper entitled, ``Putting the Horse First: Veterinary
Recommendations for the Safety and Welfare of the Thoroughbred
Racehorse,'' from American Association of Equine Practitioners,
submitted by Mr. Pitts......................................... 94

A REVIEW OF EFFORTS TO PROTECT JOCKEYS AND HORSES IN HORSERACING

----------

MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2012

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Health,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., at
Unionville High School, 750 Unionville Road, Kennett Square,
Pennsylvania, Honorable Joe Pitts (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Pitts, Burgess, and
Whitfield.
Also present: Representatives Gerlach and Meehan.
Staff present: Brenda Destro, Professional Staff Member,
Health; Cory Hicks, Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power;
Debbee Keller, Press Secretary; Carly McWilliams, Legislative
Clerk; Heidi Stirrup, Health Policy Coordinator; and Jean
Woodrow, Director, Information Technology.
Mr. Pitts. This subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning, everyone. First, I would like to acknowledge
Unionville High School for hosting this field hearing today.
This is a wonderful venue, and we appreciate your hospitality.
Second, I would like to thank Superintendent Dr. John
Sanville, Principal Paula Massanari and Mr. Rich Hug, the
Director of Technology and Communications, along with their
staff for everything they have done to make this hearing
possible.
I would like to recognize Dr. John Sanville, Superintendent
of Unionville-Chadds Ford School District for a few minutes at
this time. Dr. Sanville.
Mr. Sanville. Thank you, Chairman Pitts and other members
of the committee, and I apologize for my back here. I welcome
everyone to Unionville High School and the Unionville-Chadds
Ford School District. This is an honor, and also something we
are quite thankful for. This provides an opportunity for our
students who are in the back here from Mrs. Grilliot's AP
government class to see democracy in action on a topic, an area
that is near and dear to the hearts of the community of
Unionville-Chadds Ford.
So with that, I thank you all very much, and I will turn it
back over to you, Chairman Pitts.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Dr. Sanville.
We have two non-committee members joining us today,
Congressman Jim Gerlach and Congressman Pat Meehan. From the
Health Subcommittee, we have Congressman Ed Whitfield, chairman
of the Energy and Power Subcommittee and a very valuable leader
on this and other issues in our committee, and we will also be
joined by Congressman Mike Burgess, who is the vice chair of
the Health Subcommittee, by videoconference from Texas. Now I
recognize myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Today's hearing will look at the effects of drug use in
horseracing, how it impacts the health and wellbeing of
jockeys, and whether adequate rules and uniform enforcement
exist to prevent doping in horseracing.
In 2008, members of the Energy and Commerce Committee held
a hearing on ``Breeding, Drugs, and Breakdowns: the State of
Thoroughbred Horseracing and the Welfare of the Thoroughbred
Racehorse.'' At that time, we heard testimony and promises from
industry groups and State racing commissions that reform was
needed and would be forthcoming.
According to a March 25, 2012, New York Times investigative
article, ``Since 2009, records show trainers at United States'
tracks have been caught illegally drugging horses 3,800 times,
a figure that vastly understates the problem because only a
small percentage of horses are actually tested.'' Further, the
New York Times found ``Illegal doping, racing officials say,
often occurs on private farms before horses are shipped to the
track. Few States can legally test horses there.''
Questions arise now about whether or not such rampant drug
use leads to more breakdowns and injuries in horses and
jockeys, and if so, what should be done about it.
We are here today, in the heart of Thoroughbred horse
country in Pennsylvania, I might say, in my district, the 16th
Congressional District--welcome to my district--to hear
firsthand from Thoroughbred owners, trainers, jockeys,
veterinarians, and lab experts on whether the previously
promised reforms by industry have had any desired effect.
I have heard from horse owners who make sure their animals
are 100 percent drug-free when they race and are really
bothered by what they see other people doing.
We will consider the need for a national set of uniform
rules to prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs with a
set of consequential penalties for violations. We can look at
whether it is possible to create a uniform set of rules for
drug use--perhaps zero tolerance--so that every State, every
race, is conducted on a level playing field which is fair to
all competitors, similar to what we have in other professional
sports.
Horseracing, unlike all other professional sports, adheres
to no national anti-doping policy. We have been racing horses
in the United States for over 200 years, but the alarming
number of breakdowns and increased drug use has been a fairly
recent practice.
Racing is an inherently dangerous sport. However, the
increased incidences and severity of breakdowns, which has
resulted in many serious jockey injuries, demands a closer look
at the issue of drugs used in horseracing and how they
contribute to unnecessary risk to the horse and rider.
Despite promises and assurances, State and industry groups
have been unable to come together to develop uniform rules. The
fact remains that there is no single entity which has the
authority to impose uniform rules on racing commissions,
tracks, trainers and owners. Congress may need to step in to
offer a sound national framework to protect the horses, the
riders and the public.
The Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 was enacted by
Congress to allow simulcast rights for racetracks, so that they
could expand their wagering clients. Today, that business makes
up a majority of racetrack business.
My personal view is that casino gambling at racetracks is a
dangerous and misguided way to increase the fan base and grow
interest in the sport, but that is a subject for another day.
I just have been given an article. It is the top of the
page, front page, New York Times, yesterday's article on ``Big
Purses, Lame Horses and Debt'' talking about this issue of
casino gambling impact on the racehorse industry, and it is, as
you can see, quite a long article, and I look forward to
reading that.
Since 1978, Congress has continued to address public
concerns about the industry and its practices. Today's hearing
is being held to look at the problems associated with drug use
in horseracing. Horse doping, breakdowns and jockey crashes are
most certainly a contributing factor to the waning public
interest in this sport. On the first day of Derby Week, when
public attention on this beautiful sport is at its peak, it is
an opportune time to discuss how the industry can regain public
confidence.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:]

Prepared statement of Hon. Joseph R. Pitts

Today's hearing will look at the effects of drug use in
horseracing; how it impacts the health and wellbeing of
jockeys, and whether adequate rules and uniform enforcement
exist to prevent doping in horseracing.
In 2008, members of the Energy and Commerce Committee held
a hearing on ``Breeding, Drugs, and Breakdowns: the State of
Thoroughbred Horseracing and the Welfare of the Thoroughbred
Racehorse.'' At that time, we heard testimony and promises from
industry groups and state racing commissions that reform was
needed and would be forthcoming.
According to a March 25, 2012 New York Times investigative
article, ``since 2009, records show, trainers at United States'
tracks have been caught illegally drugging horses 3,800 times,
a figure that vastly understates the problem because only a
small percentage of horses are actually tested.''
Further, the New York Times found, ``Illegal doping, racing
officials say, often occurs on private farms before horses are
shipped to the track. Few states can legally test horses
there.''
Questions arise now about whether or not such rampant drug
use leads to more breakdowns and injuries in horses and
jockeys. And if so, what should be done about it.
We are here today, in the heart of Thoroughbred horse
country in Pennsylvania, to hear from Thoroughbred owners,
trainers, jockeys, veterinarians and lab experts from their
firsthand experience and knowledge, the extent to which the
previously promised reforms by industry have had any desired
effect.
I've heard from horse owners who make sure their animals
are 100% drug free when they race, and are really bothered by
what they see other people doing.
We will consider the need for a national set of uniform
rules to prohibit the use of performance enhancing drugs with a
set of consequential penalties for violations.
We can look at whether it is possible to create a uniform
set of rules for drug use--perhaps zero tolerance--so that
every state, every race, is conducted on a level playing
field--which is fair to all competitors--similar to what we
have in other professional sports.
Horse racing, unlike all other professional sports, adheres
to no national anti-doping policy. We have been racing horses
in the United States for over 200 years, but the alarming
number of breakdowns and increased drug use has been a fairly
recent practice.
Racing is an inherently dangerous sport. However, the
increased incidences and severity of breakdowns, which has
resulted in many serious jockey injuries, demands a closer look
at the issue of drugs used in horse racing and how they
contribute to unnecessary risk to the horse and rider.
Despite promises and assurances, state and industry groups
have been unable to come together to develop uniform rules. The
fact remains that there is no single entity which has the
authority to impose uniform rules on racing commissions,
tracks, trainers, and owners. Congress may need to step in to
offer a sound national framework to protect the horses, the
riders and the public.
The Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 was enacted by
Congress to allow simulcasting rights for racetracks, so that
they could expand their wagering clients. Today, that business
makes up a majority of racetrack's business.
My personal view is that gambling at racetracks is a
dangerous and misguided way to increase the fan base and grow
interest in the sport--but that is a subject for another day.
Since 1978, Congress has continued to address public
concerns about the industry and its practices. Today's hearing
is being held to look at the problems associated with drug use
in horse racing.
Horse doping, breakdowns, jockey crashes are most certainly
a contributing factor to the waning public interest in this
sport. On the first day of Derby Week, when public attention in
this beautiful sport is at its peak, this is an opportune time
to discuss how the industry can regain public confidence.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and yield
back.

Mr. Pitts. At this time I yield back and recognize our vice
chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Dr. Burgess, for 5 minutes
by video conference in Texas. Dr. Burgess, you are recognized.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take the
entire 5 minutes. I know time is a little bit tight this
morning.
I just want to appreciate the fact that I was able to
simulcast from Texas because Texas is also horse country, and I
also want to acknowledge the work of Chairman Whitfield when he
was our subcommittee chairman on Oversight and Investigations
several years ago and had a number of hearings into the
horseracing business, at that time primarily concerned about
the insurance that jockeys were provided but a number of these
issues came up as well.
So I certainly look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses today. I want to thank the people in Pennsylvania for
making this possible, and I acknowledge the presence of my
colleagues who are not on the committee. I welcome their
presence at today's hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back to you at this time.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
At this time we will recognize our first panel. We have
four experts from the racing industry on our first panel: Mr.
Gary Stevens, a retired jockey. Yes. Before we have the
experts, let us give the other members a chance for opening
statements. Mr. Whitfield, I am sorry. You are recognized for 5
minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Chairman Pitts, and I would
like to also say how glad we are to be in Chester County,
Pennsylvania. I might say that if I had known it was this
beautiful, we would have come up a long time ago. We are also
delighted to have students with us today, and we know that they
are all involved in political science, so they may have some
advice for us as we go along as well.
And I know that we are very excited about our witnesses
today because we have some people with great experience in the
horseracing industry, we have vets, we have others that I
believe will well represent the entire industry on the issues
that we are interested in.
I might also say that the horseracing industry is a $40
billion industry as an impact on our national economy. It
employs over 460,000 people directly and indirectly provides
jobs for about another 1.4 million people.
The recent New York Times article entitled ``Mangled Horses
and Maimed Jockeys'' as well as the one you mentioned today,
``Big Purses, Sore Horses and Death'' has once again reminded
us of what I call the dark side of racing in America. To quote
from the first article, ``On average, 24 horses die each week
on racetracks across America. Many are inexpensive horses with
little regulatory protection.'' Twenty-three horses broke down
on a single day last year. That was the day of the Kentucky
Derby. Now, all the breakdowns did not occur at Churchill Downs
but around the country that day, 23 horses went down. I was
told that Finger Lakes last year, there was testimony that at
Finger Lakes, 63 horses died on the track last year alone,
Finger Lakes, York.
Now, some people dismiss the issue by saying well, these
are just animals, but while the horse is important, the jobs
provided are certainly important, the economic impact is
certainly important, but even more important than all of that
in my view is the safety issue, and certainly nothing is more
important than safety for those men and women who are jockeys
out there riding these magnificent animals, and we really don't
know that the injury count is. I can tell you one thing, Dr.
Burgess and I did have a hearing a few years ago on the jockeys
and more than one jockey came in who was a quadriplegic from an
accident on the track.
This is a controversial issue because any time you talk
about change, people and entities feel threatened, which is
just a natural inclination, and there are groups very much
opposed to the legislation that Tom Udall and some of us have
introduced, H.R. 1773. The National Thoroughbred Racing
Association doesn't really like that legislation. The Jockey
Club is threatened by it. The Horsemen's Benevolent Protective
Association and some of the horsemen's groups don't like it. We
know that the American Association of Equine Practitioners,
particularly Dr. Scott Palmer, don't like it. We know that some
of the tracks are concerned about this legislation.
So it is an issue that is controversial and we are very
much aware of that as we move forward because any time you talk
about change, people feel threatened by it. And many people say
the federal government should not be involved in horseracing,
it is a State issue. But the fact is, the federal government is
already involved in horseracing with the passage of the
Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978. The industry came to the
U.S. Congress and asked for the authority for simulcasting, and
the Congress gave that authority without any strings attached.
And so the predicament that we find ourselves in today is that
there is not one entity that has any authority over
horseracing. There is not any uniform drug test rules. There is
not any uniform lab. And unlike other countries around the
world, the use of drugs is prevalent throughout the racing
industry and America.
Now, we know that therapeutic drugs are necessary but
performance-enhancing drugs are another issue, and when you
have representatives of foreign countries come to America and
say we are not really interested in buying horses in America as
much as we used to be because we are concerned about the drugs
being used and many people--Arthur Hancock and others--have
said they are very much concerned about the weakening of the
breed because the horses winning the races are the ones that
are bred the most and they may not be the genetically strong
horse, that they win because of performance-enhancing drugs.
So we are talking about the horse, yes, we are talking
about jobs, we are talking about the economy, we are talking
about weakening the breed, we are talking about the public
perception of racing, we are talking about the danger for
jockeys. And when I asked Jack van Berg, who is a Hall of Fame
trainer, about this issue, I said will you describe the drug
issue in horseracing today. This is about 3 years ago at a
hearing. He said the best way I can describe it is that it is
chemical warfare out there.
So I am looking forward to our testimony today, Chairman
Pitts, and I genuinely appreciate your having this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]

Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing
on the horseracing industry and for the role you have played in
helping clean up this sport.
In 2008, the Commerce Trade, and Consumer Protection
Subcommittee, under a Democratic controlled Congress, held a
hearing on the abuse of performance enhancing drugs in
horseracing.
During that hearing, which I attended, the National
Thoroughbred Racing Association stated and I quote, ``I can't
speak to the distant past, but I can tell you that recently
this industry has been making great strides towards uniformity
at the national level and the NTRA has been an important
catalyst for that change.''
Unfortunately, 4 years later, the promise to clean up
horseracing still has not come true and the most recent
evidence of that fact was the New York Times article titled,
``Mangled Horses, Maimed Jockeys.''
The problem with any promise to reform the horseracing
industry from the NTRA, the Jockey Club, the RCI, and other
horse groups is even if they had the desire to institute a true
no drug policy, they have no way to adequately conduct drug
tests or enforce the policies that are in place currently.
The reason one organization cannot reform horseracing is
because each state has their own laws making it impossible for
a trainer, owner, veterinarian, or jockey to know what is and
is not acceptable in each of the 38 racing jurisdictions.
The viability of horseracing is important to our nation's
economy and if there are problems in the industry Congress
cannot afford to ignore them. The horse industry has a $40
billion-a-year effect on our economy, employing over 460,000
people and indirectly providing jobs for 1.4 million people.
Horseracing alone has a direct effect on GDP of $10.6
billion and a total GDP effect of $26.1 billion.
Additionally, spectators at the tracks are being defrauded
when a horse is drugged because the odds are stacked against
the good actors that are trying to play it fair. It's like
playing blackjack and the dealer always gets the ace.
As I stated at the last horseracing hearing, ``greed has
trumped the health of the horse, the safety of the jockey, the
strength of the breed, and the integrity of the sport.''
This brings us to where we are today. In my view
horseracing has three problems:
First, as we discussed horses are being drugged and are not
running on their own natural abilities, which is literally
killing the industry. The New York Times reported that ``on
average, 24 horses die each week at racetracks across
America.'' Additionally, the jockeys riding the horses are
thrown from the horse and either die or end up in a wheel chair
for the remainder of their life.
Second is the lack of transparency on racetracks. What I
mean by that is on many occasions racetracks do not report when
a horse breaks down on the track and when it is reported the
root cause of the breakdown is never determined. Take the
example provided by the New York Times analysis where they
concluded that 3,600 horses died racing or training at state-
regulated tracks over the last three years. I'm sure their
number is underestimated and the sad truth is no one really
knows how many horses or jockeys are affected.
Last, the horseracing industry lacks a central authority.
Right now, there is an unorganized conglomerate of horse groups
trying to police an industry that has 38 different sets of
rules to follow for each state where horseracing occurs. I
realize people are reluctant to allow the federal government's
involvement in horseracing, but the truth is the industry has
had federal government involvement since 1978 when simulcasting
was allowed.
H.R. 1733, the Interstate Horse Racing Improvement Act
attempts to protect the horseracing industry with very little
federal involvement.
Some may not like this bill because they say it bans all
drugs, but I just don't see how a pro-drug policy is a winning
argument.
Other people do not like this bill because they do not want
to touch the Interstate Horseracing Act. My response to them
is- please bring me changes to H.R. 1733 to accomplish the same
goal and I would be happy to consider them. I've never said
H.R. 1733 is perfect, but it is a proposed solution to a
problem that must be addressed.
I might add that H.R. 1733 is designed to have as little
federal involvement as possible. In fact, the bill still keeps
the regulation of the industry at the state, but it sets a
federal standard that must be met. Most industries have federal
standards to ensure that interstate commerce is able to thrive
under a level playing field. That is all this bill is designed
to do- create a level playing field.
So, I want to thank the witnesses again today for being
here. I look forward to your testimony and I hope we can move
this industry forward. I also hope that we are not here again a
few years from now discussing this same exact problem.
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Kentucky and
notes that he is a national leader on this issue and we really
value your expertise and advice on this matter.
At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman, my
colleague from Chester County, Mr. Gerlach, for 5 minutes for
an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GERLACH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Gerlach. Thank you, Congressman Pitts, and thank you
for the opportunity to be with you here today. I look forward
to a very educational proceeding here.
When I had an opportunity to take a look at a few of the
preliminary materials that your office staff gave us, my eyes
were greatly opened by a lot of the information that is
contained in there and certainly what is happening today in the
horseracing industry. I serve on the Ways and Means Committee
in the House, and we do not have any jurisdictional
responsibility over this issue, so I wanted to come and be part
of this hearing simply to be educated by what is happening and
to understand better the purpose of your legislation, and I
think this testimony is going to be very eye opening, as I
said, to me and I am sure to my colleague, Congressman Meehan,
as well, and we appreciate very much the chance to be here to
listen to the testimony and hopefully at some point see your
legislation move forward to the House floor after your work in
committee, and I really applaud your leadership in holding this
hearing and to highlight these issues once again to the
American people and to the public for what is really going on
day to day in the horseracing industry.
So thanks so much for having me and I look forward to the
testimony.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes another colleague from Delaware County, a gentleman
who was a prosecutor, district attorney and then U.S. Attorney,
Mr. Pat Meehan, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK MEEHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Meehan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you, Mr. Whitfield, as well for taking the time to have paid
attention to this issue so significantly, and I think it is
important. It is timely by virtue of the fact that the Nation
gears its eyes towards one of the great horseracing prizes
towards the end of this week, but I think it is particularly
timely because we once again open up the pages of the New York
Times and see a front-page story talking about the very real
issues that are focused around the drug use in the industry as
my colleague, Mr. Whitfield, talked about, discussing it as a
chemical warfare. I do serve on the Oversight Committee in
Congress, but Mr. Chairman, you identified the issue as a
background as a former prosecutor.
My eyes are wide open as I look at this but I have to tell
that as I read the stories in the New York Times, so much of
the focus appropriately is on the health and welfare of these
horses, the extent to which in the eyes of many they may be
being abused in some ways in terms of the over-utilization and
inappropriate use of the drugs but I think first and foremost
about the welfare of human beings that are getting on the backs
of those horses, the jockeys themselves who are being put into
a circumstance in which arguably one might suggest that there
is an understanding prior to it on the part of somebody that
inappropriately affects a horse that they are putting a human
being into an untenable circumstance, and I am interested in
learning more about it but the prosecutor in me begins to
question at what point in time does somebody become criminally
liable for injuries that occur to another human being by virtue
of the circumstances related to the inappropriate doping of a
horse.
These are very serious matters and obviously one of the
concerns we have is not to over-regulate, to over-involve
government in areas but we also have an obligate to protect,
and I am interested in hearing the testimony of this incredibly
impressive panel of interested owners and participants in
industry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
We have two panels today, and now we will go to the first
panel. We have four experts from the racing industry: Mr. Gary
Stevens, a retired jockey; Mr. Arthur Hancock, the owner of
Stone Farm; Mrs. Gretchen Jackson, the owner of Lael Stable;
and Mr. George Strawbridge, the owner of Augustin Stable. We
are happy to have all of you with us today.
We will not confine your opening remarks to 5 minutes. You
may have the amount of time you need to present your testimony.
Mr. Stevens, you are recognized first.

STATEMENTS OF GARY STEVENS, HALL OF FAME JOCKEY; ARTHUR B.
HANCOCK, III, THOROUGHBRED OWNER; GRETCHEN JACKSON,
THOROUGHBRED OWNER OF THE 2006 KENTUCKY DERBY WINNER, BARBARO;
AND GEORGE W. STRAWBRIDGE, JR., THOROUGHBRED OWNER

STATEMENT OF GARY STEVENS

Mr. Stevens. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Pitts, for
holding this hearing this morning.
I doubt that I will take the 5 minutes because I am going
to get straight to the point. I would just like everyone to
know, these are strictly my opinions based on my career and my
experiences as a jockey for 27 years. I started out at a very
small racetrack in Boise, Idaho, and was fortunate enough to
graduate up to the so-called big leagues, and we all know that
this is a dangerous sport for both horse and jockey. There is a
danger factor as there is in all sports. But this danger factor
does not need to have drugs involved. It just makes it that
much more dangerous.
I rode a lot of different caliber of horses throughout my
career, the good with the bad, and when I say the bad, I mean
the lower class horses. That doesn't mean that they are bad
horses, just a different class of horses, and horses, like
humans, have injuries. I realize there is a place for
therapeutic drugs in training but I do not believe there is a
place for race-day medications. If a horse needs medication to
run on, whether it is Lasix, Butazolidin, the list goes on and
on, and I think Mr. McPeek is going to announce that there are
99 legal drugs out there in the United States right now,
allowable. But any time drugs are involved, the danger factor
goes up.
And where I am going with this is, I have rode a lot of
horses over the years. Say they are 8 years old and they had
raced 45 times, along with those races is going to come wear
and tear is there is with any athlete, and I would know a lot
of these horses. I would ride some horses in some cases for 2
years, and they were sort of like your old favorite car where
you knew every nook and cranny about those horses. They didn't
have the prettiest way of going but that is just the way they
moved. I didn't mind riding those kind that could feel it. One
of the scary things is when one of these horses would be
claimed, they would go to a different stable, and the first
time I would climb on their back, they would jog off like
Secretariat, and that is when it was scary, and those were the
horses that nine times out of ten if one broke down, that was
the one that broke down. And yes, a jockey does have the choice
to ride these horses or ride for particular trainers. What a
jockey does not have control of is if that particular horse is
in the same race that you are in after you told them that you
don't want to ride it. And we are not just talking about this
specific horse that may break down and the jockey who is on its
back. You are talking about multiple horses and multiple
jockeys which may be affected by a horse breaking down and
going down.
I know that the industry, a lot of horsemen complained a
couple years back when we were in the process of phrasing out
anabolic steroids. Well, we did it. The Jockey Club was key in
getting that done, and I have full confidence that the Jockey
Club will do what is right and sign on to this bill and we will
have federally mandated rules throughout the United States
instead of every State having different drug policies and
different thresholds. It is black and white. My opinion, if
there is no race-day medication, you are going to solve a lot
of problems. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevens follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.005

Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes Mr. Hancock.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR B. HANCOCK, III

Mr. Hancock. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing today and for
your consideration of legislation to ban race-day medications
in horseracing.
My name is Arthur Hancock and my family has been breeding
racing horses since the 1870s. As a fourth-generation horseman,
I am here to try to guarantee that horseracing will be a viable
sport for my children and grandchildren from the next
generations.
At one time, Thoroughbred racing was the number one
spectator sport in America. It was held in high esteem by the
general public, and there was excitement and anticipation all
across America about who would win the Kentucky Derby or maybe
even the Triple Crown. There was also a superstar to follow
like Seabiscuit, Man O'War or Secretariat, who raised the level
of enthusiasm for the sport.
Back then in the 1950s, horses averaged 45 lifetime starts
in their careers. Now it is down to a lifetime average of 13.
This is an astounding drop of 71 percent. And since genetics
change every million years or so, according to Charles Darwin,
what could be the cause of this drastic increase in the
unsoundness of the Thoroughbred racehorse?
While the number of starts has drastically decreased, the
rate of breakdowns and fatally injured horses has increased.
Moreover, the rate of injured jockeys has increased along with
the loss of public confidence for the sport. Given that the
track surfaces are even safer today, we would naturally expect
that our horses would have more lifetime starts and be sounder
than their predecessors.
So what is the difference today in our industry that didn't
exist in the past? What could be the culprit that is
undermining the soundness of our horses? The answer is clear.
The increase of breakdowns and unsoundness parallels the spread
of Lasix as a race-day drug. Today, only 5 percent of all
horses are bleeders and yet almost 100 percent receive Lasix on
race day. There is only one reason for this. Lasix is a
powerful diuretic that allows a racehorse to shed 20 to 30
pounds at race time, thus making it a performance-enhancing
drug. We weigh jockeys meticulously to see if there is a pound
difference, and here this drug allows them to lose 20 to 30
pounds, and we in the horse business say that a pound at a mile
is a length. So, you are talking about several lengths.
In addition to Lasix, nearly 100 percent of all racehorses
run with Butazolidin, Ketofen, or Banamine along with other
``therapeutic drugs'' in their systems. And by the way, the
cost of Lasix on race day is around $100 million, just Lasix
alone for race-day Lasix for a year. And that doesn't count the
jugs and all the after medications that they receive after the
races to make them more comfortable, which is fine.
Sadly, the financial interests of those who administer
drugs and the lure of enhancing performance have become the
drivers of our industry. Recently, the Thoroughbred Owners and
Breeders Association took a poll, and 75 percent of the owners
and breeders voted to stop race-day drugging. The fans have
also said they don't want it. According to the McKinsey report,
75 percent of the population regards racing as a sport in which
drug use runs rampant and we are also losing 4 percent of our
fan base every single year. Without fans, we are all out of
business.
So if the owners don't want drugs and the fans don't want
drugs, who does? Well, the veterinarians and the big drug
companies want them. Why? Drugs are money, big money. The
needle goes in, the money comes out. They make the money and
the industry and the breed are destroyed in the process. Fans
leave, foreign buyers leave, owners leave. We become obsolete,
a thing of the past, a once-great disgraced industry.
With precipitous declines in both attendance and wagering
at our tracks, compounded by plummeting bloodstock sales, it is
apparent that Thoroughbred racing is at a crossroads. The
industry has suffered a loss of confidence and respect with its
fan base and the general public. Countless reports of trainers
being charged with doping their horses coupled with the
destruction of horses due to horrific injuries on the track
cast our sport as something other than beautiful and noble.
Today, fans and casual observers who have historically
supported our industry don't want to be associated with the
abuse of animals and the widespread cheating by the use of
performance-enhancing drugs. We should also remember, abused
horses equate to abused jockeys, injured jockeys and maimed
jockeys.
Recently, the Kentucky Racing Commission tried to do away
with race-day drugs but failed because of the fear that other
States would not follow suit and that Kentucky would be driving
a nail in its own coffin because horses would move to other
States with more lenient drug rules. There is no uniformity in
the 38 racing jurisdictions. People are at odds with one
another. Recently, when some of us were critical of TOBA for
not pushing ahead with drug reform, a very high ranking member
of the Jockey Club called me and accused us of shooting our own
troops. All we are really trying to do is rally the troops to
protect our horses, to protect our jockeys and to protect the
integrity of our sport.
However, we cannot do this alone. It is my hope that the
Jockey Club and other various industry organizations will get
behind the Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act. This is a
strategy that will save our industry.
In conclusion, why has the horse industry been talking
about stopping race-day medication for decades with few
tangible remedies? The answer is because there were no remedies
until now. That remedy is the amendment to the IHA called the
IHIA, the Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act. If anyone has
a better or more workable plan, please present it. All we want
to do is stop this.
For years, all we have had is hot air and hope. Our
industry in partnership with the federal government gave us
simulcasting. Now let us guarantee that races being simulcast
to the United States are run free of race-day medication.
Thank you for your consideration of this issue which is so
vitally important to our industry, and we appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hancock follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.009

Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his opening
statement and now recognizes Mrs. Jackson for an opening
statement.

STATEMENT OF GRETCHEN JACKSON

Mrs. Jackson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Whitfield and members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today
and for your interest in the important issue of medications,
drugs in horseracing. I am Gretchen Jackson. I am a
horseperson. I have been on a horse as a small child, as a
teenager and as an old lady. I am passionate about the horse. I
am the wife of Roy Jackson, and together we own Lael Stable.
Roy grew up around horses and his parents raced. We bought our
first racehorse in 1975 and have been involved in the training,
racing and breeding ever since. This is 37 years in racing.
When we got involved with the industry, it was absolutely,
positively unheard of to have a 2-year-old on Lasix and not the
norm for an older horse. Today, it is the exact opposite.
I also worked for various educational agencies and schools
having been trained to teach coping skills to young children
with emotional problems, and one of the sessions involved
playing a video of a drug-dependent society. It used to get a
lot of laughs every time because of the silly mistakes people
would make while under the influence. Well, now it is not a
laughing matters. Drugs have insidiously penetrated into the
world of horseracing, endangering both horse and rider. By
endangering, I mean threatening their very lives. Helmets and
vests are great protection but not always. No leg wraps can
save the racehorse who has been given performance-enhancing
drugs instead of time off to heal.
Racing demands speed, speeds up to 40 miles an hour. This
means only the fittest and soundest horses should be competing.
Many horses use a vet to enable a less than sound horse to
compete by giving the horse performance-enhancing drugs. Vets
profit from this service and trainers can do this because there
is less than a handful of certified testing labs that are able
to test accurately out of the 19 in operation. I understand
that there are more drugs being used in horses that are not
known, not detectable than the ones that they can identify.
Many tracks use less-accurate testing labs to save money. Both
horse and jockey face unknown danger under these conditions.
Roy and I raced a wonderful homebred horse named Barbaro.
He gave us goosebumps every time he raced. He ran his heart out
in the Kentucky Derby to win by six lengths. What a thrill it
was to be in the winner's circle with three of our four
children and their families, then going on from there to the
Kentucky Derby Museum where we received more accolades while
the derby was played over and over again on the oval ceiling.
Our euphoria only lasted 2 weeks as Barbaro broke down, broke
his sesamoid joint right in front of us only 150 feet from the
starting gate. We ran down onto the track to be with him. There
is only one way to describe what it is like down there standing
by a seriously injured horse. It is heavy. The air is just
filled with grief. That scenario is all too easy recall as it
has been printed on my mind's eye and in my heart. These are
not forgotten by the fans. Many never come back to the races.
Drugs present in the racehorse have created havoc with the
betting fan too. Just go to a betting parlor and listen to the
disgruntled fans. They are trading the latest secrets, whether
true or false, that concern trainers and their appeal to the
bettor. Many are wary and do not bet.
So many of these horses and jockeys could be safer if drugs
were not a part of racing. It is one thing to use drugs
therapeutically after the race. It is another thing to mask
problems before the race. The way racing is going now, it is a
no-win situation for everybody, for the horse, the jockey, the
owner, the fan and the industry. We need to regain the honesty,
beauty and the sport of racing, allow the horse to be a horse.
Horses are vulnerable. They have no say in way their birth
takes place or any of the how their life plays out. They only
have us. It is time we are the best us we can be before we lose
our dying sport.
I speak for a number of people who are either directly
involved with horseracing or simply love watching the sport and
believe that to preserve its future and to ensure the safety of
the horse and jockeys, we must move forward to institute a ban
on race-day meds. Roy and I stand ready to help you deliberate
on this most important matter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Jackson follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.012

Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Strawbridge, for an opening
statement.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. STRAWBRIDGE, JR.

Mr. Strawbridge. Thank you, Chairman Pitts and members of
the subcommittee for holding this hearing and inviting me to
testify today. I am George Strawbridge. I breed and race
Thoroughbreds, and not only in America but in Europe as well.
It is quite extraordinary what has happened to Thoroughbred
racing in this country where over 75 percent of the population
regards racing as a sport in which drugs run rampant and have
obviously a very negative perception of the sport. This year,
in a front-page feature in the New York Times, it described the
horrors of racing as a result of extensive drug use. The
article was quickly followed by a lead editorial in the same
paper which condemned ``the casual and continual mistreatment
of vulnerable overmedicated and ultimately disposable
athletes.'' The editorial described how horses were forced to
run with debilitating ailments, and concluded that horseracing
was a disreputable sport. I honestly have never heard of
another sport in the United States described as disreputable.
These words such as ``mistreatment'' and ``disreputable'' are
very powerful words, and as such, they will have a long life.
How did we get in this deplorable situation? I think the
first reason is that in this country there are no significant
consequences for doping horses. This unfortunate fact contrasts
with the attitude of all other major racing countries. Just
this past year, a very well known jumping trainer retired from
training. Why? Because he received a 4-year suspension, not a
week suspension, not a 2-week suspension, but a 4-year
suspension, and so he retired as a trainer. Why such a harsh,
severe penalty? The BHA, which is the British Horseracing
Authority, a national organization that controls racing, wrote
because they wanted to demonstrate to racing stakeholders that
reckless disregard of equine welfare would not be tolerated.
Why it is tolerated in this country, I will leave up to your
imagination. This punishment is in contrast to the slap on the
wrist that our trainers get.
Another consideration is that the use of drugs in the
United States has absolutely no stigma or shame attached to
them. In fact, people who use them are given racing's highest
honors in the form of Eclipse awards. Michael Gill, a notorious
owner, was given an Eclipse award for being the leading owner
of the year or the owner of the year. During the same year,
there were three trainer finalists for trainer of the year that
were all under suspension. Extraordinary. I asked Cornelius
Uboh, who by the way was going to contribute to this gathering
but was talked out it it, at any rate, I asked him last year--
he is the head chemist, by the way, from the University of
Pennsylvania Laboratory, if we were winning the war on drugs as
some were suggesting. His answer was an emphatic no. He pointed
out that we were not only losing but losing badly. He said if
they discovered a test for one drug, two new ones came on the
scene. He also mentioned that trainers could easily order non-
detectable drugs on the Internet. He told me about a non-
detectable drug called dermorphin, which was not 10 times more
powerful than morphine like the drug Dutrow was caught using
two falls ago but a thousand times. This is stronger than
morphine, a thousand times stronger than morphine. In short, it
was a very, very discouraging conversation.
So what is our hope for the future? In a word, our hope for
the future is change. We must change, we can change, and the
best news is that we have slightly started to change. Thank
goodness for the Breeders Cup gradually changing to drug-free
racing. But we must do more. Luckily, we have excellent role
models in the rest of the world. These role models adhere to
zero drug tolerance. These countries have rising attendance,
rising handle and rising prices for secondhand horses brought
to race in Asia. In Great Britain, racing is the second most
popular sport after soccer and is a national institution. In
Australia, the running of the Melbourne Cup is a national
holiday. In the rest of the world, racing has full fields and
national recognition.
Look at the horses these models have produced, see the
stars, Frenicle, Black Caviar, just to name a few. Also, look
at the turf races in the United States last year. They were all
won by foreign horses. In fact, in the Canadian International,
foreign horses were the first four finishers. And that is all
with their second string, not even the Frenicles and things
like that. This is their second string.
I know that emulating the successful model in the rest of
the world will be a big start towards respecting the star of
our sport. We need to stop treating the Thoroughbred as a
commodity. We need to show the public and our fans, such that
there are, that we care and that we are a clean and legitimate
sport. The Thoroughbred never, and I repeat, never, lets you
down. My hope is that we stop letting this noble animal down.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strawbridge follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.014

Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
That concludes the opening statements. We will now go to
questioning and answers, and I ask the members to please comply
with the 5-minute rule. I will begin questioning and recognize
myself for 5 minutes for that purpose.
First of all, Mr. Stevens, do you think, does the public
know that horses are drugged and therefore conclude no level
playing field exists in the horseracing industry?
Mr. Stevens. Yes, that is my belief. It used to be when I
would get on an airplane, a redeye flight to fly to New York,
the first question I was asked is, have you ever rode in the
Kentucky Derby, and if it wasn't that, they would say is it
fixed. So I would go through my spiel of why it is not fixed.
Now the question asked, don't they drug all those racehorses?
Mr. Pitts. Are currently employed jockeys afraid to express
their opinion on banning race-day meds for fear some trainers
or owners opposed to a ban will no longer employ them?
Mr. Stevens. I am just going to say that I believe that may
be the case but I cannot speak for these riders, but that is
the appearance it gives me, yes.
Mr. Pitts. One other question. Do racetrack vets regularly
identify and scratch lame horses before the start of a race?
Mr. Stevens. We hope so, but that is not always the case,
sir.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Hancock, we discussed many different
conflicting and overlapping organizations and associations in
the industry. In your view, are there particular groups that
have been an impediment to reforming the sport?
Mr. Hancock. Yes, sir. I think--I would like to preface
this by saying I have a lot of friends who are veterinarians
and they are good people, but this culture has evolved over the
years. I worked at the racetrack when I got out of college for
a year in 1966, and for a top trainer in the country, and the
only time the veterinarian would come around the barn was if we
had a temperature or colic or to check the horse on race day,
but yes, sir, I think that is the case.
Mr. Pitts. In your opinion, why have there been no Triple
Crown winners in the last, what, 9 years?
Mr. Hancock. It is longer than that.
Mr. Pitts. Longer than that?
Mr. Hancock. Yes. I believe that the horse gets Lasix, say
he runs in a prep race before the Derby and in a race before
that he gets Lasix. He gets it on Derby day. Every horse in the
Derby runs on Lasix as well as, you know, Banamine or
Butazolidin and some of the others that Kenny McPeek will talk
about, and they lose the 20 or 30 pounds and it dehydrates
them, it takes them a few days to recover. Then 2 weeks later
they go to the Preakness. They run in the Preakness with Lasix,
and by the time the Belmont rolls around 3 weeks later, I just
think it takes a lot out of them. I am sure of that. And I
believe that is a big reason why we haven't had a Triple Crown
winner. And if a sport doesn't have stars, you know, to follow
like I was talking about, Secretariat and a lot of other
horses, you lose your fans.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
Mrs. Jackson, are most owners not supporting the ban of
race-day medication?
Mrs. Jackson. I think so.
Mr. Pitts. Why? Would you respond to that?
Mrs. Jackson. I believe so just because Arthur has come out
with a list, and you have got many, many owners that have
signed up requesting trainers not to use race-day meds, right?
Mr. Hancock. Right. There are 411, I think the last count,
of top--there are owners, trainers, that have signed put to get
rid of this.
Ms. Jackson. I think there is a significant amount.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you.
Mr. Strawbridge, when you import horses from Europe, do you
expect those horses to be put on Lasix because they are now
racing in the United States?
Mr. Strawbridge. Yes, that is what happens, and that is----
Mr. Pitts. Why the switch?
Mr. Strawbridge. Because Lasix is a performance enhancer.
It is not only a performance enhancer because of the loss of
weight but it is more a performance enhancer because it is like
blood doping as an animal gets dehydrated. There has been two
studies in 1998 at the University of Pennsylvania that
definitely conclude that there was performance enhancement as a
result of using Lasix, and a more thorough one regarding 16,000
horses at the University of Chicago the next year in which it
conclusively proved that it was a performance enhancer, and the
main reason it was is because it would delay the onslaught of
fatigue and increase the oxygen that would be going to the
muscles. So it is a performance enhancer. As my friend John
Gossen says, who comes over here and wins the Breeders Cup race
with a great deal of regularity, when in Rome, do as the Romans
do, and Aiden O'Brien after a year of trying to race without
Lasix and not winning a Breeders Cup race--he has terrific
horses, by the way, and said no, I am going to use Lasix on my
horses, and they all seem to win as a result of using Lasix.
Mr. Pitts. Thank you. My time is expired, but I wanted to
ask you, in your experience, what is America's current
reputation in the European horseracing community?
Mr. Strawbridge. It is absolutely dismal. You look at the
American horses. We sent a champion over to Dubai. The odds in
this country were, you know, anywhere from 3:1, 5:1, and you
look at that fair and the Europeans betting on American horses
and the odds were 25:1 to 50:1. They say oh, they are coming
over and running without drugs so therefore they are not as
good and as effective and so that is a fact. I can't sell an
older horse to race in Hong Kong from this country selling over
seven horses to Hong Kong. It is because they are tainted if
they run in this country.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the Vice Chairman of the Health Subcommittee, the
gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for 5 minutes for
questioning.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Strawbridge, if we can stay on that subject for just a
moment, what happens when the converse of that situation
occurs? You referenced a horse that has raced in the United
States now going over to Dubai, presumably performance
enhancers are withdrawn and the horse is less capable. If an
owner in Dubai or one of the European countries comes over here
to race, are they then more likely to use performance-enhancing
methods in order that their horses can compete?
Mr. Strawbridge. Well, they will only use what is
permissible in this country, what is legal in this country, and
since Lasix is legal, that is what they will give their horses,
you know, to race on, and I think it has been proven that
first-time Lasix use is an enormous advantage. At least that is
what the bettors seem to think. And that is what happens when
they come and race in this country.
Mr. Burgess. So if there is a horse that has been of
considerable renown and repute in a foreign country, that horse
coming over here with the more permissive performance-enhancing
compounds is actually going to have an advantage over the horse
that regularly is given a performance-enhancing compound?
Mr. Strawbridge. Well, yes, I think he would. There was a
very curious group one race in Chicago last year in which the
Aga Khan came over and he is adamantly opposed to any
medication and has fired trainers that have been caught with
Bute or anything like that and was running against a Kumor
horse, who was first time Lasix, and they had a terrific battle
but the Kumor horse won because at least the bettors thought he
was using Lasix for the first time. There was a matter of a
head difference.
Mr. Burgess. I will just have to admit to some naivete. I
am a physician by background. Of course, Lasix is a fairly
common compound used in treatment but I was not aware that it
was a performance-enhancing compound or the degree to which it
is apparently used. For anyone on our panel, how it is
administered? How is the Lasix actually given to the horse?
Mr. Pitts. Who would like to respond? Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Stevens. IV or intramuscular, either one, with a
needle.
Mr. Burgess. So if it is given intravenously, is that
something that a layperson can do or does that require a
professional to administer it?
Mr. Stevens. It is illegal for a trainer to administer any
medication on the racetrack intravenously, so a vet would have
to do it, and in the State of New York, when Lasix is
administered, it is administered by a New York State vet.
Mr. Burgess. And it is legal to administer it before the
race starts. Is that correct?
Mr. Stevens. Yes, that is the idea. I believe is 2 hours
before, 3 hours--it is 4 hours, 4 hours before.
Mr. Burgess. Now, Mr. Stevens, in your testimony you said
that you can sometimes tell, or maybe I misunderstood, maybe
you can always tell if a horse has been exposed to a
performance-enhancing medication. Did I get that correct?
Mr. Stevens. Yes, you did, sir, and the reason for that, as
I said, you know, you've got a truck, and I know this might be
a bad comparison, but if you have got a car that has got a
wobbly tire but it is always wobbly and it gets to where you
are going pretty good and all of a sudden you get in that same
car the next day and it is smooth as silk, you know somebody
has messed with it. I mean, it didn't just change overnight
when they are 7, 8 years old. So yes, you know that something
has gone on.
Mr. Burgess. A good and experienced rider can tell that
something has changed. Is that correct?
Mr. Stevens. Yes, that is correct, and there are times that
a rider will feel something and the horse doesn't finish that
well or he gallops back sore after the race and you may tell
the trainer hey, he didn't feel just right today, and all of a
sudden you see the horse back in 2 weeks later and it has got a
different jockey on it, and it is very common for a rider to go
up to another jockey who is now riding that horse and say hey,
watch yourself, man, this horse didn't feel that good, and if
it is a young rider, inexperienced, he doesn't know what he is
supposed to feel anyway.
Mr. Burgess. OK. And that is actually I guess where I was
going with this. You have the ability to say I am not going to
ride that horse but you don't have an ability to identify that
horse to someone in authority and say this horse is behaving in
a way that makes me uncomfortable riding, therefore I would
like someone to investigate?
Mr. Stevens. Yes, you can do that, and that is what I would
advise to every jockey in the United States. If you ride a
horse that you feel is unsound or he pulls up unsound, a lot of
times I would tell the State veterinarian at whatever
jurisdiction I was riding, hey, you guys need to take a look at
this horse before he runs again, but that doesn't always
happen. A lot of these jockeys, I believe because it is so
competitive, they are afraid to say anything to anyone. They
turn their cheek. It is not because they want to but it is
because they afraid of losing their job.
Mr. Burgess. But then you as a jockey, you could be put at
risk by having an unsound horse in the pack that is running on
that track, even though you are not the rider. Is that correct?
Mr. Stevens. That is correct. If you have a horse in front
of you, the horses are very tightly bunched when they race.
They race in packs. They are herd animals. If the lead horse
goes down, more times than not, several horses fall.
Mr. Pitts. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you for your testimony this morning.
You know, Mr. Stevens, you are a Hall of Fame jockey, and
Mr. Hancock, you and your family have been involved with many
Derby winners and others, and Mrs. Jackson, you also, and Mr.
Strawbridge is one of the leading steeplechase as well as
Thoroughbred owners as well. What is wrong with just having a
horse run on natural abilities without anything? What is the
problem with that? I mean, it is my understanding that other
jurisdictions around the world that on race day they are
supposed to be free of medications. So what is wrong with
horses running on natural ability? Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Stevens. Nothing. I would prefer that. And I had the
pleasure to enjoy that with my stays in Europe. I rode for what
I consider two of the greatest trainers in the world, Sir
Michael Stoute and Andre Fabre in France, and I had to pleasure
to ride for Mr. Strawbridge with some of his horses in Europe.
I rode for him here and in Europe. And I can tell you this--and
I rode extensively in Hong Kong, Ireland, England and France
and Germany, but I never had a horse break down in one of these
foreign countries with me. I had some pull up bad after the
race or take a misstep with me but I never had a horse break
down with me. Now, that is an amazing stat right there. And it
was pure and it was a pleasure because when I galloped down to
the start, you felt what there was. I mean, if a horse, if you
knew he wasn't himself that day, if he felt different than he
had in the morning workouts, you scratched him. You would get
him withdrawn. But it is a great feeling of confidence to know
you were going down there on a horse that was feeling
everything 100 percent of what their physical abilities were.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Hancock, do you have any comment on
that?
Mr. Hancock. Well, I think the rest of the world runs
without it, and we are the rogue nation basically. We are the
only country. They do use some Lasix in South America, which
they are getting rid of right now, I understand.
Mr. Whitfield. And Mrs. Jackson, you said that at one time
there was no Lasix or any other drugs in the United States. Is
that right?
Mrs. Jackson. Yes. I believe New York State was the last, I
believe, to allow it. I think it is a matter of time. If people
want their horse--it is money and if they have to give them
natural time to heal, that they don't want to take that time.
They want to get the money.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Strawbridge, do you have any comment?
Mr. Strawbridge. Well, absolutely it is possible because as
Arthur says, they run, you know, without drugs in the rest of
the world, and there is an enormous appreciation for the
animal, the Thoroughbred horse in the rest of the world as
there is in this country, and that is why it is such a shame.
The Thoroughbred racehorse, God's noblest creature, is not
running on their natural ability the way they are in the rest
of the world, and that is why the negative perception is there.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Stevens, have you known any jockeys that
suffered catastrophic injuries because of accidents on the
track?
Mr. Stevens. About every jockey I know. My brother was
airlifted out of Canterbury Downs two summers ago. He was on a
filly that he entered the stretch four lengths in front and she
broke both front legs simultaneously and the horse landed on
him. Four other horses ran over the top of him and he punctured
both lungs, broke all of his ribs, broke his sternum and his
pelvis in that fall, and I am hard pressed to think of any
jockey that hasn't had a bad injury, and unfortunately, neck
injuries and back injuries to be fairly common injuries. We had
two jockeys in a short period of time. Rene Douglas is a
quadriplegic. Eiber Coa, thank God, miraculously he is walking
now. But the list of paralyzed jockeys goes on and on and on.
Mr. Whitfield. Just one other question, if I may, Mr.
Chairman.
Are painkillers regularly administered to these horses on
race day or is that illegal in most jurisdictions, or do you
know?
Mr. Hancock. I know that every State has a different time
frame but Bute or Banamine, there are 24 and 48 hours pre-race
day. Lasix is the only legal drug that can be administered on
race day.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Strawbridge, you were talking about
something like a hundred times more powerful than morphine. Is
that right?
Mr. Strawbridge. Yes, there was a drug a hundred times more
powerful than morphine, and dermorphin is 1,000 times more
powerful than morphine, and for those of us that have had
morphine to kill pain, that will kill the pain.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Chester Country, Mr. Gerlach, for
5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Gerlach. Thank you.
Following up on that, any of the panelists, I am trying to
make sure I understand exactly in talking about the
performance-enhancing aspect of the drugs, I am picking up that
there are two aspects here. One is the diuretic that allows for
reduction in weight of the horse at race time that I then
assume is better so that the horse runs faster because the
horse is of less weight and therefore can put in a faster time,
but that Lasix is not used necessarily to mask an injury. Is
that correct? So the Lasix is used to reduce weight to create a
faster time going around the track. Is that basically the
purpose of Lasix?
Mr. Strawbridge. No, the purpose of the use of Lasix is
to--several purposes, but at any rate, to lessen the chances
that a horse will bleed. They think that by dehydrating the
animal, he will have a less chance of bleeding. But we know
from statistics and past measurements that only 5 percent of
the horses bleed. They all bleed to some extent, but when I
talk about the 5 percent, that is serious bleeding. And the
thing to remember, Mr. Gerlach, is that Lasix is not allowed
for humans to run on. I mean, when human athletes compete in
track and field, their whole objective is to hydrate themselves
because of the dangers of dehydration.
Mr. Gerlach. And so the other drugs that you make mention
of, those are to mask injury or to mask a condition of the
horse that while it is still able to run it is in a weakened
condition or it is in a pained condition and therefore that
masks that horse in hopes that it gets around the track in a
good time before some further injury occurs to it. Is that
right?
Mr. Strawbridge. Correct.
Mr. Gerlach. And so there is a patchwork of laws and
regulations around the various States that dictate what you can
and can't use on race day?
Mr. Strawbridge. Yes, and there is also numerous drugs, as
Dr. Uboh was saying, that are non-detectable. So if they are
non-detectable, they can be given without any detection or any
consequences, and they definitely are performance enhancing
because they cover up pain such as dermorphin would and there
are muscle relaxers, they have agents of blood doping, you
know, to increase the oxygen supply to the muscles and, you
know, they are performance enhancing.
Mr. Gerlach. Mr. Stevens, when you line up then in the gate
on race day, you don't know the other seven, eight, nine horses
if they have anything in their systems that are masking an
injury that some trainer is taking a chance on won't reoccur or
won't show up during the time of the race, you don't know as a
jockey at that point in time so what is the situation in terms
of your mindset? Why do jockeys, if they don't know the other
horses may have certain enhancements given to them or something
that is masking their injuries, what is the economic pressure
that a jockey has to participate nonetheless in that race not
knowing the condition of the other horses?
Mr. Stevens. Well, believe it or not, I think a lot of it
is peer pressure that, hey, if one pilot won't fly the plane,
we will find a pilot that will fly the plane. As I said before,
there is always a danger factor in horseracing, and when I was
active and riding consistently in California, that was the
circuit that was on, there were certain level races that I
didn't ride because I knew that horses were changing hands a
lot, in other words, they were claimed in claiming races, and
there were certain trainers that I would not ride for, either
because they either didn't know that they were running sore
horses or they didn't care, and maybe a combination of both.
But it tended to be the same trainers that I suspected of doing
things, and I chose not to ride. I was fortunate enough that I
didn't have to run against a lot of their horses because they
were lower classes and I chose not to ride those races because
of the risk factor.
Mr. Gerlach. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Delaware County, Mr. Meehan, for
5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to this
very distinguished panel for your presentation here today. When
I look at a very complex industry, I see 75 percent of the
horse owners are looking at this and suggesting that we need to
address the issues, and more than 75 percent of the fans, yet
we have horse owners, casino owners, the horseracing
commissions, we have trainers, we have veterinarians, we have
drug companies that are producing these as testimony has been
made today, we have the jockeys, we have fans who are feeling
that they really can't trust an industry with such a tradition
and history that goes back to the days of my Latin studies. Who
is in charge? Mr. Strawbridge, who is really in charge?
Mr. Strawbridge. Well, that is the problem, Mr. Meehan.
There is nobody in charge. We have a bunch of alphabet
organizations, and the result of their input and discussions
and ideas is to produce, as the Bible says, the Tower of Babel.
That is all we have in this industry. There is no spokesman.
And I think you hit the nail on the head. What everybody says,
the only way things will change, things will reform is if we
have a national governing body the way they have in England,
the way they have in France, they way they have in Hong Kong.
Mr. Meehan. What is preventing that now?
Mr. Strawbridge. Oh, the Jockey Club. Arthur, you remember
this. When was the Jockey Club told that they couldn't govern
racing because they were a private organization? They don't
have the authority. The authority has to come from the federal
government to give a national organization the authority to
make rules, enforce rules and direct racing. That is what has
to happen because the States--there was an example, the RCI,
another alphabet organization, Racehorse Commissioners
International, they wanted to have a compact, which made sense.
They were going to set the rules and require through this
compact enforcement of the rules, but there was an opt-out
provision and all of a sudden it would not only start but----
Mr. Meehan. So if one State won't abide by the rules, we
have a race to the bottom, not a race to the finish line.
Mr. Strawbridge. And there is major difference as far as
punishments are concerned or enforcement, and as Dr. Uboh said
when I asked him, are you getting more and more positives, he
said yes, and I said, well, where is the enforcement, and he
said we can only identify the positives, the enforcement is up
to the State racing commission.
Mr. Meehan. May I explore that for a moment? Mrs. Jackson,
you discussed the idea of the various participants in this and
your concern about drugs endangering jockeys, among others. It
is counterintuitive to me. I think about a veterinarian as
somebody almost a physician trained to take care of the welfare
of a horse. How is it that we have veterinarians who are
authorizing utilization of these drugs into horses where there
has to be the recognition of the understanding that it cannot
be in the best interest of a racing horse to be on these kinds
of drugs prior a race? At least the testimony clearly supports
that.
Mrs. Jackson. In my opinion, I think the veterinarians have
become twisted in their belief that they are helping the horse
and they are helping the horse for 2 hours maybe and they are
very nearsighted. They are also receiving money for the
injection, and if they tell the owner or the trainer that this
horse needs time off, they don't receive any income but they do
receive an income from inoculation, and I think that they--I
hope that in their minds they are thinking they are helping the
horse. I hope that that is where they are coming from but it is
so nearsighted.
Mr. Meehan. Mr. Stevens, it is an honor to have you here
today along with this distinguished panel of owners as a Hall
of Fame jockey, but when you talk about your colleagues who are
not able to walk here today like you are, I mean, who do you
hold responsible for putting the jockeys in the position that
they are in where again I go back to the words that were used,
reckless disregard for the welfare of not only the animal but
by connection the human who is riding it?
Mr. Stevens. Well, at the end of the day, what they have in
most jurisdictions that is the same in about every State, it is
called the trainer's responsibility rule. In other words,
whenever there is a bad test, and kind of getting back to your
question, there is very rarely ever a penalty for a vet who
actually--if there a high Bute or a high Lasix, it is the
trainer who gets the slap on the wrist, very rarely a vet. So I
think at the end of the day, a lot of trainers need to take a
look in the mirror, and when they are complaining about
racetrack conditions, for instance, a horse breaks down and
immediately they blame the racetrack. They say, oh, the track
was bad, and I am not at the track watching horses train every
single day no matter which jurisdiction I am in, and
surprisingly, I mean, someone who has been this game for as
long as I have, you can visually see it. You don't always have
to be on a horse's back to tell they are sore, and to see some
horses trot by in the morning or gallop by that you can see
aren't that good the way they are traveling and then to see
them run in the afternoon, at the end of the day, it is the
trainer that is calling the shots to send those horses out
there on the racetrack.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired. I
yield back.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman. That concludes
the first round of questioning. I would like to have at least
one follow-up.
H.R. 1733 has been introduced in the House of
Representatives by my colleague, Mr. Whitfield, and I hope in
responding to the follow-up questioning by the gentleman from
Kentucky, someone will speak as to your thoughts on that bill.
At this point the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Kentucky for 5 minutes for follow-up.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you. I think Mr. Meehan
certainly hit the point here, and that is that no one really
has authority to do much of anything, and I know after the
Interstate Horseracing Act was passed in 1978, Senator Mack
Mathias in Maryland spoke to the Jockey Club because this issue
had come up about the prevalence of drugs on race day, and he
asked the Jockey Club for the industry to take charge of this
issue and do something about it, and he said and if not, then
we are going to try to do something at the federal level. And
since then, about every 4 or 5 years this issue comes up and
the Jockey Club, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association,
all of them have the best intentions but they really don't have
any authority to punish. Is that your understanding, Mr.
Hancock?
Mr. Hancock. Yes, sir. Nobody is in charge, because there
are 38 States with their own racing commissions and governors
and they are in charge of their own districts.
Mr. Whitfield. And it is a complicated issue because this
Interstate Horseracing Act was given to the racing industry at
their request for simulcasting, and that is where about 80
percent of their revenues come. Now, we focused on the
Thoroughbred today but this act also would apply to quarter
horse racing as well as standard bred racing, and from the New
York Times article, I know a lot of that first article focused
on quarter horse racing. I almost get the impression that
quarter horse racing may be even more dangerous and less
regulated than Thoroughbred racing. Would you all agree with
that, or not? Or do you have any idea?
Mr. Hancock. I really don't know much about the quarter
horse.
Mr. Whitfield. But anyway, this legislation would apply to
all of it across the board if they use simulcasting. So I might
also add, Mr. Chairman, that Tom Udall, who is a Democratic
Senator from New Mexico, introduced this legislation over on
the Senate side. So they are trying to move over there with it
as well, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Pitts. Would one of you like to----
Mr. Burgess. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Pitts. Yes, the vice chairman is recognized.
Mr. Burgess. I wonder if I might have just one follow-up
question with Mrs. Jackson. As an owner, are you consulted
before the use of any performance-enhancing medication? Do you
have the power to veto the use of this medication or are you
just simply left out of the decision-making process?
Mrs. Jackson. I think we have stated it pretty clearly with
the trainers that we use, and we have chosen the trainers
because they have not a history of using those kind of drugs.
We also receive monthly bills where we are allowed to see what
has been injected in our horse, what the horse has received, so
we have an opportunity to know what is going on. I understand
that trainers will inoculate horses on their own and pay for
it, but I don't think we are associated with those kind of
trainers. I think ours is a direct and very honest, good
relationship with our trainers.
Mr. Burgess. And you are to be commended for that, but does
a trainer have the ability to set that standard--or not a
trainer, does an owner have the opportunity to set that
standard with their crew prior to engaging in any of this
activity?
Mrs. Jackson. I think it is a possibility, yes.
Mr. Burgess. I mean, you are the owner, after all, correct,
and you----
Mrs. Jackson. Correct. Can you repeat that last part again?
Obviously, I missed it.
Mr. Burgess. Well, you are the owner so does the owner have
the ability to affirmatively support or decline any of the
performance-enhancing activity that might take place in a race?
Mrs. Jackson. I think so, definitely. They own the horse.
They pay the bills. It comes down to them.
Mr. Burgess. But that is always after the fact. You are
able as the owner to say here are the rules that I want you to
play by, and they are then respected by the trainer and the
rest of the racing crew. Is that correct?
Mrs. Jackson. That has been my experience.
Mr. Burgess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Hancock would like to respond.
Mr. Hancock. Yes, sir. I said to a top veterinarian in
Kentucky about 3 years ago, I said I don't want for my horses
to have any kind of anything, and he said well, Arthur, you
want to win races, don't you? And that is the crux of the
matter. We do have the authority to say no medication but it is
like getting in a fight with one hand tied behind your back,
and we have got a lot at stake here.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Texas, who
yields back, and I would like to thank our panelists for your
testimony and for answering the questions. If we have follow-up
questions that we send to you, could you please respond in
writing? Thank you.
At this point then we will dismiss panel one and call panel
two to the witness table. We will recess for 3 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Pitts. Recess having expired, we will ask our guests
today to please take their seats. I will ask panel two to
please take their seats.
I would like to thank all of them for agreeing to testify
before the subcommittee today. Our second panel will include
four witness, one by video conference from the State of
California. First of all, Mr. Kenny McPeek, a horse trainer;
secondly, Dr. Kathryn Papp, a veterinarian with a private
practice; thirdly, Mr. Glenn Thompson, a horse trainer; and
finally, Dr. Gregory Ferraro, director of the Center for Equine
Health at UC-Davis and an associate director of the Large
Animal Clinic at UC-Davis. I see him on the screen, so thank
you all for coming. We have your prepared statements.
Mr. McPeek, we will begin with you, and you are recognized
for your summary of your opening testimony.

STATEMENTS OF KENNY MCPEEK, TRAINER; DR. KATHRYN PAPP, DVM,
HILLCREST MEADOW EQUINE SERVICES, LLC, HARRISBURG,
PENNSYLVANIA; GLENN THOMPSON, TRAINER AND AUTHOR: ``THE
TRADITION OF CHEATING AT THE SPORT OF KINGS''; AND DR. GREGORY
FERRARO, DVM, PROFESSOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, AND DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR EQUINE HEALTH, SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

STATEMENT OF KENNY MCPEEK

Mr. McPeek. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to
testify on this important topic.
I am Kenny McPeek. As a Thoroughbred trainer, I have nearly
8,000 starts and have won over 1,200 races in my career. I
began my career at the lower levels as a claiming trainer, and
until today I have saddled over 120 stakes winners during a 27-
year career. I have never at any point needed performance-
enhancing drugs, have never had a problem with so-called doping
my career. I have experience not only as a trainer but as an
agent and a farm owner, and I am fully vested in the horse
industry and its long-term prospects are my reasons for being
here.
My hope is that this leads to a better version of this
industry. Some refer to it as a sports, others, gambling,
others as agriculture. It obviously is important in the number
of jobs it offers this country and it is important that it
thrives in the long term.
I do not believe that any major decisions about horseracing
should be made without the involvement from professionals like
myself. There are other trainers that need to be heard and they
should eventually be given an opportunity to contribute to this
conversation. We are actually inside the arena. We deal with
these issues on a daily basis. They are very complicated. It is
not black and white. We all work very hard. We get up very
early in the morning. We have to deal with no only horses, we
deal with clients, we deal with a list of issues, whether it is
business, labor laws, immigration laws. It is a very, very
multitasking profession, training racehorses.
My reasons for supporting the Horseracing Improvement Act
would include standardized rules, licensing and medication.
There are many issues that need to be addressed. I have
concerns that the focus of the Interstate Horseracing Act is
too narrow in its agenda. There are currently solid testing
practices and penalties that are enforced by State racing
commissions. However, they vary between States.
Doping seems to be the focus here, and it is important to
address these acts, but they are very rare. The current testing
systems measure medication overages in micrograms, nanograms
and picograms and our current testing methods are the most
controlled of any sport in the world. Most of the positives are
minimal due to these extreme measurements and I believe in many
cases are due to poor stable management, metabolism rates in
individual horses, and possibly environmental factors, not
necessarily or always cheating and doping.
The rules being different in each State and the States
don't always clearly communicate the rules. Of course,
enforcement of these medication rules is very, very important,
and it would be wonderful to have uniform rules nationally, but
how we can get 38 States to agree on one set of rules?
I brought with me a book called ``World Rules on Equine
Drug Testing and Therapeutic Medication Regulation.'' It was
written by Dr. Tobin, Dr. Brewer and Ken Sterling with the
support of the National HBPA. It attempts to clarify the
complicated issue of medication in our sport. It shows that
horsemen's groups are interested in clarity in medication
policies in American racing. The book lists 99 different
therapeutic drugs, not performance-enhancing drugs. If my
colleagues or I make one mistake, then we are considered a
cheater or a doper. The book addresses zero-tolerance policy,
and I firmly believe that the involved parties aren't very far
apart on these issues.
My personal opinion is that I think we should make stakes
races completely medication free including no Lasix. These
stakes races are important because these horses are a
significant part of the breeding programs and their genetic
influence is vital to strengthening the Thoroughbred over a
course of time. It also legitimizes our stallions and pedigrees
to international buyers, which is good for the economics of the
industry here in the United States.
However, that being said, lower-level claiming horses need
a certain amount of therapeutic medication and it would be a
mistake to completely deny these horses a limit of medication.
When I say that, I am saying there are horses that need Lasix.
There are horses that do bleed. Now, for them to win a grade
one, that is one thing, but for those horses to be given what
up to now is considered a therapeutic medication in Lasix would
probably be a positive. I think you may need to narrow the
limits or at least how do you define a horse that actually
needs it, and that is a very complicated topic and how can the
racing jurisdiction or even national policy address what horse
actually needs that as a therapeutic medication.
Now, I am not condoning race-day medication in an anti-
inflammatory form. When I first started training, we used to be
able to give Bute and Banamine the morning of the race. Now, in
the course of probably the last, I can't remember if it is 10
or 12 years ago, they actually removed those race-day drugs. I
thought that was a positive and I do think it has had a
positive effect. However, the nanograms, like, for example,
those of that get up in the morning and take an Advil or a
little Aleve to get through the day, that is one thing. The
horse trainers have to decide if we give Bute, we need to know
out times and so we don't miss the limits, like if it is 5
nanograms, then we have to know, and that is what this book
tries to address. Unfortunately, there are a lot of States and
a lot of different medications and for most horsemen, most
trainers haven't read this book. Most of them don't have it.
But even if you have it, it is very difficult to understand.
Concerning breakdowns, medication overuse is not the sole
cause of breakdowns. There are so many factors including track
surfaces. I am not sure you will completely eliminate the
problem because injuries are unavoidable in all sports, not
just horseracing.
In the case of jockey safety, in some cases jockeys are
injured due to clipping heels where actually jockeys actually
make a mistake in a race, cut them off, run them into the rail.
So those types of issues are out of a trainer's control and
obviously there are suspensions often given by stewards and
that issue in itself is very complicated.
Mr. Pitts. Could you please summarize? Your entire written
testimony will be entered into the record.
Mr. McPeek. To finish, in many parts of racing are in
place. However, they need organized structure on a national
level to bring them together, perhaps even an American
horseracing authority where Congress mandates either the Jockey
Club or the National Racing Compact to make licensing rules and
medication decisions to bring the sport more structure and less
confusion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McPeek follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.018

Mr. Pitts. Thank you. The Chair thanks the gentleman. I am
sorry to have interrupted you but we are pressing towards a 12
o'clock end time so we will ask everyone to maintain the 5-
minute rule.
Dr. Papp, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN PAPP

Dr. Papp. Good morning, and thank you to the committee for
having me. My name is Kathryn Papp and I am a private
veterinary practitioner with a practice currently based out of
the Penn National Race Course in Grantville, Pa. I previously
worked as a veterinarian at the Fair Hill Training Center and I
am currently also doing regular work at the West Hampton
Training Center in New Jersey and both Parks and Monmouth race
tracks.
Let me first begin by stating that I love and adore horses
so much. They tirelessly give to us even in spite of us and our
treatment of them. That is why I am in this profession, to
advocate for those who can't advocate for themselves.
Having said that, I am not for or against federal
regulation of racing at this time. I am for the welfare of the
horse and the wellbeing of those who are riding, and those
people who are riding are not just the jockeys but the everyday
exercise riders who are riding these horses during training
hours. I am merely here today to state my observations as well
as share my personal experiences and professional feelings on
what is currently being conducted on the back side of many U.S.
Thoroughbred racetracks and what else needs to be addressed in
order to ensure the wellbeing of both horse and rider.
The overuse and abuse of medication is rampant at our
Thoroughbred racetracks and training centers. That abuse is not
limited to just performance-enhancing drugs. It encompasses all
substances that our trainers may think may improve their
horse's performance from valid treatments to hokey and possibly
dangerous therapies. Medications that are currently being
overused at our racetracks include but are not limited to
antibiotics, corticosteroids, NSAIDs, hormones and their
analogs, calmative agents, hypersensitizing agents and
respiratory aids, amongst many others. These substances are not
just being used inappropriately around race time. More
commonly, they are employed during training and the time
leading up to races. I cannot tell you how many barns I know
that train every one of their horses on phenylbutazone every
day whether they need it or not. And Bute alone has many
adverse effects to consider ranging from GI issues to renal
issues.
The issue does not just include active racing, as I said
before. It is extremely important to address the medication use
and rider safety during training hours, and this worry is
compounded with the increased amount of races available at
year-round tracks and increased purse sizes. These horses are
more easily fatigued and thus require more medication to keep
them going. Forgotten horsemanship is at the crux of this
problem.
Training centers notoriously harbor trainers who overuse
and abuse medications. Some of these trainers may have medicine
cabinets that rival the inventory in my vet truck and I know
that I am not the one prescribing these drugs. So where are
they coming from? Internet pharmacies, other veterinarians,
overseas? While the AAEP has done a fantastic job addressing
the weaknesses inherent in the industry in designing
recommendations for those practicing in the pari-mutuel
environment, these are merely recommendations, and honestly,
not every racetrack practitioner is even a member of the AAEP
or respectfully regards any suggestions they may bring to the
table.
The mighty dollar is a driving force for many veterinarians
and trainers involved in horseracing. I know a trainer whose
vet was going through a barn one day administering race-day
medications. He had recently got a new expensive truck and the
trainer said to him, how does it feel to be rich, and the vet
said well, it sure doesn't suck. I also know racetrack
veterinarians who own and market their own pharmacies for
additional income, which is an inherent bias.
I was present the other day when a trainer had entered a
horse in a lower claiming horse, and the horse had been winning
high-level races for quite some time, and somebody went out and
said why did you enter this horse in such a low claiming race.
They said, well, this horse hasn't been going really well
lately, we're just trying to get rid of him as soon as
possible, and this is the case in many situations.
My focus as a racetrack veterinarian is on preventative and
diagnostic medicine and surgery. I do not provide race-day
medications and for the most part am not involved in the Lasix
program unless filling in for a colleague. It is not uncommon
for me to see on race day a practitioner enter a stall in one
of the private barns or the detention barn with three to ten
syringes full of medication to administer and not be questioned
by anyone. In the meantime, there is hardly any surveillance of
horses that are permanently stabled on the racetrack, and
trainer administration of drugs is ubiquitous.
Despite new regulations, horses are still having their
joints injected with dexamethasone and other substances up
until the day before a race. Not a week passes where I am not
asked by an individual on the track or at the training center
about a new product or a new treatment that they have heard
about to make their horses run better and if I can obtain it
for them.
Of course, my regular clients already know better than to
ask me how to cheat, and I am proud to say that one of my
trainers I work has never incurred a positive test. Though many
trainers who are using and penalized for positive tests if
suspended continue to train either unabashed at training
centers or via associates at the racetracks.
Pain is a protective mechanism in all animals, and it
allows these athletes to protect and save themselves in certain
circumstances. Horses, especially Thoroughbred, will under
every circumstance do anything necessary to remain upright and
not fall or injure their riders. However, this protective
mechanism is nullified when doping occurs and thus our riders
and jockeys incur a significantly greater risk of injury or
even death.
A major encumbrance for the horseracing community is the
lack of a central set of rules, published guidelines and
serious punishments. The rules regarding the allowed use of
medications including those on race day change from State to
State, and many trainers will be racing a number of horses in a
number of different States within any given week. It is hard
even for me to keep track of the withdrawal times and ever-
changing medication rules amongst the different jurisdictions.
In conclusion, we need central regulation of the sport, and
I hope we can accomplish that amongst ourselves. However,
action needs to be taken and completed quickly, deliberately
and efficiently if we are to save our industry before it
destroys itself. Our horses are suffering because of our non-
action, our riders are suffering because of our non-action and
it is all of our faults. We need a collaborative effort to
right the wrongs in today's racing environment. Most of all, we
need a concerted effort to deter the overuse and abuse of drugs
and a foolproof manner of which to enforce the rules and
penalties set forth.
I do believe we have come a long way since the last hearing
in 2008 and strides have been made to improve the industry's
image and the horses' welfare though many of these changes are
still theoretical and academic. What we really need to do now
is to take these accomplishments made in committee meetings and
hearings and directly apply them to the back side of America's
racetracks.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Papp follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.020

Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and now
recognizes Mr. Glenn Thompson for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.

STATEMENT OF GLENN THOMPSON

Mr. Thompson. Chairman Pitts, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Gerlach,
Mr. Meehan and Heidi Stirrup, I know you did a lot of work and
I want to thank you. My name is Glenn Thompson. I want you to
know it is a privilege to stand alongside of you in this effort
to clean up the great sport of racing. I have been a
Thoroughbred trainer for over 30 years. I have never had a
positive drug test and I have been blessed by the fact that I
have never had to put a horse down on race day.
I recently wrote a book, ``The Tradition of Cheating in the
Sport of Kings,'' in an effort to return horsemanship and
integrity back to the sport of racing. In the book, I claim
that a vast majority of trainers and vets are giving illegal
drugs on race day. Since my book came out in November, not one
vet and not one trainer has stood up to challenge my claims.
There is a culture of drugs that has taken over racing.
Anyone that has chosen to train horses in the last 35 years
would have a very difficult time avoiding the trap that we, and
include myself in this group, have fallen into.
I do want to be clear: I do not give illegal drugs on race
day. When I hold a trophy in the winner's circle, it is mine. I
won the race.
From the time you start your first hot walking job until
you take out your trainer's license, you were taught, if a
horse has a problem, you do whatever it takes to get them
healthy for the race. If there is an ankle problem, you give
the horse Bute. If a horse bleeds, you give them Lasix. If a
filly is in season, you give her a shot to take her out of
season.
Back before the use of drugs became so common, we had
answers to these problems that did not require medication. Back
in the day, we used horsemanship and patience and time to
overcome our problems. But just like everything else in today's
world we fell into the trap of the quick fix. Thus, our horses
and every aspect of racing have suffered.
Lasix is the biggest hurdle we have to overcome in racing
right now. This past winter, I went for surgery, and contrary
to my friends' belief, it was not brain surgery. The doctor
stressed that I was not to take any anti-inflammatories within
a week of my surgery because it could cause bleeding. Thank God
we banned anabolic steroids a couple of years ago but we still
routinely give corticosteroids to the horses very close to the
race. One of the side effects for corticosteroids is bleeding.
If you took a perfectly healthy horse with a strong set of
lungs and gave it to a doctor and asked him to come up with
drugs and a plan to make that horse bleed during a race, I
would be willing to bet that a couple of his top choices in the
drug department would be anti-inflammatories and steroids.
The powers-that-be in racing, the people that we have
trusted to make up the rules, have felt for the last 30 years
that it is fine to give anti-inflammatories and steroids to
horses 24 hours before they race, and then in their wisdom they
scratch their heads and wonder why we have a bleeding problem.
The plan that I think makes the most sense is to
immediately ban Lasix and all other medications for 2-year-
olds. If a 2-year-old needs drugs to race, they might be trying
to tell us that they want to wait until they are 3 to race. The
2-year-olds that are not bleeding this year will hopefully be
able to compete next year as 3-year-olds without bleeding. It
would be a great accomplishment to have a Lasix-free Kentucky
Derby in 2013 where none of the horses bleed.
In 2014, Lasix is finished for all horses. By this time I
feel we have a better handle on bleeding and hopefully some
research can be done to help the older horses deal with the
problems they will face. I highly recommend that the people
that love horses and the people that do research dedicate a lot
of time and energy into finding a better solution for the
bleeding problem. Are we going to have horses bleed with this
plan? Yes, we are. Is it going to be difficult? Yes, it is. But
we are never going to know if we can climb this mountain if we
just stand at the bottom and look up at it.
I know some people are going to say, let us just ban it all
now for all horses and that you are tired of waiting for change
but I urge you to look out for the horses. To just suddenly
stop Lasix, when a lot of the damage has already been done to
their lungs, would be cruel and I feel we would see many horses
possibly bleed to death on the track. The plan is a good one
and it will work, and most importantly, it looks out for the
horses.
Now we are going to make a little transition here to the
poster boy of bad behavior in racing, Mr. Richard Dutrow. Mr.
Dutrow has had a few violations over the years, OK, so he has
had 60 violations over the years, and the racing community
wants to ban him from racing for 10 years. I want it known that
if all the trainers in America or the vast majority of trainers
in America had their actual records of what they treated their
horses with on file on race day, the vast majority of trainers
would all receive 10-year bans. They have just been a little
smarter than Mr. Dutrow and not gotten themselves caught. I
also want it known that Mr. Dutrow's breakdown record over the
last few years, he has only had to put one horse down on race
day in front of the crowd from his last 900 starts. Many other
very prominent trainers have had to put several horses down on
race day, several. My question to you, who is worse, the guy
that has several rule violations or the guy that routinely has
horses break down? I am going to leave that with you guys to
think about. It is a very, very complicated issue.
I am, however, going to tell you who should receive a
lifetime suspension, and that would be the people that are in
charge of the integrity of our great sport. The Jockey Club,
the NRTA, the Grading Stakes Committee, the stewards and the
track police are all complicit. They have all been ineffective
in helping with the integrity and the drug issues we now face
but the main culprits are the State racing commissions in the
States across America. Their inability to come up with
universal rules and their very lazy attempts at oversight I
feel has led directly to the deaths of many horses and many
horrific injuries to jockeys. I honestly feel that if the
students in this school got together, they could do a better
job.
In closing, I want it understood that I did not enjoy
writing my book. I struggled with doing it for years. I do not
enjoy looking into some of my friends' eyes and seeing what I
now see. I felt uneasy about coming to this hearing and
testifying before you, but someone had to do it. Someone had to
stand up for the horses, and it is my honor and privilege to do
so.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.024

Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes Dr. Ferraro by video conference. Welcome. You are
recognized for 5 minutes, Dr. Ferraro.

STATEMENT OF GREGORY FERRARO

Dr. Ferraro. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to testify. I will paraphrase my
statement--you have my written statement--and try to be brief.
My background is, I was a racetrack practitioner for 27
years on Southern California Thoroughbred Racetrack, and since
1998 I have been the director of the Center for Equine Health
at UC-Davis. As part of that job, I am the liaison between all
aspects of the horse industry and the School of Veterinary
Medicine, which means I come in contact with the racing
industry, with the sport horse industry, hunters, jumpers,
dressage, cutters, reiners, pleasure horses, just about any
type of horse there is. I also do a lot of work with humane
groups, people that are concerned about the welfare of horses
who may not necessarily understand horses.
I can tell you without a doubt that the general public
whether we believe medication is good or bad for the horse,
whether we can make the distinction between therapeutic
medication and doping, the general public cannot, and they are
overwhelmingly against any kind of use of drugs in horseracing.
My general feeling about this is that if we continue to allow
the use of drugs in horseracing of any kind on race day, any
kind of positive testing, we will eventually lose our fan base
and destroy the sport. So I think that this is a step that
needs to be done.
Based on my previous experience on the racetrack, I
understand the opposition to not banning drugs such as Lasix
and Butazolidin. In fact, I was one of the original proponents
of that when those drugs were originally allowed. It is only
through the benefit of hindsight now that I can see that my
argument in proposing the use of Lasix and nonsteroidals was
incorrect. It has not served the industry well. It has not
served the horses well.
I understand why many people are afraid of banning them,
but if you think about it, there is almost no trainers or
veterinarians engaged in racing these days who ever practiced
without the use of those drugs so they firmly believe that they
need them. I would argue that most of the rest of the modern
racing world races without those permitted medications, and if
they can do it, we can too.
Finally, understanding the myriad of State and local
controls over racing and the various interests from owners to
trainers to racing jurisdictions, there is virtually no way
that you are going to be able to get any kind of consistent
rule to control these drugs without some kind of federal
legislation. I just don't see it happening. And so while many
of us feel that federal rules and regulations are something we
want to keep out of our sport, I think in this instance, there
is just no way to manage this without it.
In conclusion, I would say that as a member of the
veterinary profession, it saddens me greatly that we haven't
served the horse industry better than we have. I think we made
a mistake in the decision about 40 years ago to go down the
path of permitting medication and I think it has taken us in
the wrong direction.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ferraro follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.026

Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman from California
for joining us, and we will now proceed with questioning and I
will now begin the questioning and recognize myself for 5
minutes for that purpose.
Mr. McPeek, when horses go to the test barn, are test
results accurate?
Mr. McPeek. Well, as far as I know, they are. In the State
of Kentucky where I race, primarily in New York, Kentucky and
Florida, I would assume that they would be. I honestly--they
don't show me the results.
Mr. Pitts. Is it uniform from track to track or State to
State?
Mr. McPeek. State to State, it is not uniform, no. That is
one of the things I was addressing in this book is that it
gives you--Bute in particular, there are at least 38 different
States and several countries they address in here that have
different types of testing, like some of them are plasma serum,
others are urine, and the out times are different in nearly
every State. It is a very difficult--it is a moving target for
a horse trainer.
Mr. Pitts. Are all trainers treated equally by track
officials?
Mr. McPeek. I have always been treated equally, yes.
Mr. Pitts. Who enforces racing rules?
Mr. McPeek. Well, the stewards, Kentucky Racing Commission
in the case of Keeneland and Churchill where we run now. In New
York, you have the New York State Racing and Wagering Board,
and of course, Florida, you have got--I can't remember the name
of the organization, but they do a good job for the most part.
Mr. Pitts. In your experience, are certain jurisdictions
more lenient towards drugging?
Mr. McPeek. I don't believe so, no. I believe they are all
very serious about their jobs.
Mr. Pitts. Dr. Papp, are racehorses being overmedicated?
Dr. Papp. Yes.
Mr. Pitts. In your professional opinion, can therapeutic
drugs mask other more dangerous drugs?
Dr. Papp. Yes.
Mr. Pitts. Can steroids cause long-term damage to a horse?
Dr. Papp. Absolutely.
Mr. Pitts. Explain.
Dr. Papp. Corticosteroids I think is what we are talking
about here, the ones that are administered both parenterally
and intra-articularly.
Mr. Pitts. Differentiate between the legitimate use of
steroids and----
Dr. Papp. Sure, there is a lot of legitimate uses. For
example, when a horse has hives, when they have an allergic
reaction, we use steroids to calm the immune response. What it
is used for, horses that have inflammation in joints and other
parts of their body, we will administer corticosteroids at a
reasonable does, at a reasonable time with an appropriate
diagnosis. So usually we are talking about injection into
joints of corticosteroids. The downside of these, immune
suppression is a huge one, decreased bone density--we are
seeing a lot of breakdowns directly related to corticosteroid
use; increased chance of bleeding, as was mentioned before, and
these corticosteroids can be administered at 24 hours out
without being detected, at least in the State of Pennsylvania
currently, and they are given in the vein and it can mask pain
and inflammation, absolutely.
Mr. Pitts. Mr. Thompson, do some trainers use chemists to
obtain compounded drugs that are particularly powerful and
undetectable with current testing methods?
Mr. Thompson. I would imagine they do. I don't have any
firsthand knowledge about that but I would imagine that they
do.
Mr. Pitts. Will industry groups like the Jockey Club and
the NTRA make changes to medication rules voluntarily, in your
opinion?
Mr. Thompson. They don't have the power but, you know, I
have no clue why these 36 States can't have a meeting and get
together and sit down and get the job done. I mean, they should
be able to have a meeting, call a meeting, get together, come
up with universal rules. They have the power. The Jockey Club
does not. The NTRA does not. The racing commissions do.
Mr. Pitts. We continue to hear that no industry group has
the authority needed to institute changes and that every change
is voluntary, that there is no uniformity among racing
jurisdictions. In your opinion, is a federal regulatory
framework the only realistic solution?
Mr. Thompson. I hope not. I mean, I hope the racing
commissions get together and have their meeting, and if they
don't, then I hope you do come in and straighten it out.
Mr. Pitts. Dr. Ferraro, the Racing Medication and Testing
Consortium has existed in one form or another for approximately
25 years. Is it an effective group with a well-understood
mandate and how effective is the group and the board that
governs it?
Dr. Ferraro. I think the group is very effective in terms
of improving the testing, monitoring, making recommendations on
testing. Unfortunately, they really do not have any control
over regulations.
Mr. Pitts. Do you believe, Dr. Ferraro, that there should
be a zero-tolerance policy for steroids in horseracing?
Dr. Ferraro. I think that there should be no drugs,
detectable drugs, in the horse's system at the time of racing.
Mr. Pitts. Many people talk about the exercise-induced
nosebleeds that are not uncommon in these horses but state that
they do not necessarily hurt the horse's performance. Does this
condition damage the lungs, however? Is this bleeding the
result of overworking the animal?
Dr. Ferraro. There is a difference in bleeders. There is
what they call a physiological bleeder. You talk to people that
are engaged in hundred-mile races, humans, they will tell you
they frequently taste blood, just from the exercise induction
of leakage across the capillaries. But there are pathological
bleeders. It is the veterinarian's job to separate the two and
treat the pathological ones and leave the physiological
bleeders alone. I believe as have others have stated here that
nonsteroidals and the other drugs we are giving are leading us
down that path.
Secondly, I think by continuing to treat these bleeding
animals and giving them the crutch that they need to continue
to race, we are sending animals to the breeding shed that we
probably shouldn't.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman. My time is
expired.
I will go now to the vice chairman, the gentleman from
Texas, Dr. Burgess. Are you there?
Mr. Burgess. I am here, Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Pitts. All right. You are recognized for 5 minutes for
questions.
Mr. Burgess. Dr. Ferraro, let me ask you a question, if I
could. You referenced the designation of permissible race-day
medications some 40 years ago as perhaps the beginning of this
problem. Did I understand that correctly?
Dr. Ferraro. That is correct. I testified on behalf of
those drugs before racing commissions before they were ever
permitted.
Mr. Burgess. Chairman Whitfield delineated for us a list of
stakeholders who might be opposed to a federal solution or
federal legislation, and here is the difficulty I am having. If
there is the ability either with the racing commissioners or
within your professional organizations to deal with this, just
in my experience, you are so much better doing that than asking
the United States Congress to get involved. Because
unfortunately, sometimes our involvement actually creates new
and unforeseen problems. The law of unintended consequences is
one that is alive and well in your United States Congress. So
is there any possibility for putting the genie back in the
bottle and rolling back the last 40 years and creating a
structure within the industry itself where federal legislation
would not be necessary?
Dr. Ferraro. I haven't seen it, and I can't see it coming.
I agree with everything you said. That worries me considerably.
But you had similar hearings to this 2 years ago where the
industry promised you that they were going to do something
about this and they have basically done nothing. You have to
understand the individual racing jurisdictions' viewpoint on
this. If, for example, California decided that they weren't
going to allow medication on their own, there is a very good
possibility that most of their race trainers and racehorses
would move to another jurisdiction, thereby destroying the
industry within their own State. So unless you have some kind
of national rule that is instituted across the country at the
same time, I don't see that any individual State or racing
jurisdiction is going to do anything about it.
Mr. Burgess. Except you referenced that the fan base wants
this. They want the drugs out of the industry. So it seems to
me if you had large jurisdictions like California, like Texas,
maybe Kentucky joining in, that if they were together to say we
are having no more of this, then the rest of the country would
fall in line. Is that just wishful thinking?
Dr. Ferraro. Unfortunately, I am afraid it is. I mean, I
wish it could be that way. If you look at our fan base in
California, for example, it is eroding fairly rapidly, and I
personally can go to other types of equine sporting events and
see the fans and the owners that used to be in racing that have
gone to other sports, and the simple reason is to get away from
this drug culture.
Mr. Burgess. Let me just ask you one last question. You
talked about pathological and physiological bleeding. For those
of us who are not knowledgeable of your field, a horse that has
pathological bleeding, how is that likely to present?
Dr. Ferraro. Usually there is some damage to the lung that
is identifiable by either ultrasounds or radiographs. There is
a consolidation lesion often. We have what we call a bleeder's
lung. It is a pretty commonly accepted type of changes in the
lung that we see. Those horses need rest and therapeutic
medication but not during the period of their training.
Mr. Burgess. And what are the symptoms that they present
with?
Dr. Ferraro. These horses bleed profusely. They bleed in
the morning. They bleed galloping. They tend to degenerate over
time in their performance. It is much different than most of
the horses.
Mr. Burgess. And is there a way to restrict the horse
designated as a pathological bleeder from racing?
Dr. Ferraro. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Burgess. So you simply medicate and put them back on
the track?
Dr. Ferraro. Yes, it is a trainer and owner judgment on it,
I believe.
Mr. Burgess. Well, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence. I will yield
back my time.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield, for 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Dr. Ferraro, you had indicated that you gave testimony to
State racing authorities in which you advocated the use of
Lasix and other drugs, and now you have changed your mind.
Could you in a very short period explain to us primarily why
you changed your mind?
Dr. Ferraro. Well, I will give you the reason that I gave
the commissioners when I argued for the medication, and in the
case of the nonsteroidals, the argument was, well, if we can
use the nonsteroidals in proximity to racing, we wouldn't have
to inject as many joints with steroids and we would avoid that.
That has proven not to be the case.
In the case of Lasix, we knew at the time when we argued
for Lasix that it really wasn't a very good drug to control
exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage. We knew that 40 years
ago. What we argued was, give us this crutch, give us this drug
that we can use now and we will find a better way to treat
these animals. What in fact has happened is, because we have
Lasix, we are not really moving down the line to find something
better, to find a better solution. Bleeding in horses,
exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage is a very complicated
syndrome. There is a lot of things going on. It is not just the
lung, it is also the heart, the buildup of pulmonary artery
pressure. So it is a very complicated syndrome. I believe that
the fact that we have had Lasix in racing has really slowed us
down in trying to sole this problem.
What I have seen when I look back now compared to--the
United States compared to Britain, France, some of the other
racing jurisdictions around the world, is that their racing has
done much better than ours. If you look at their stallions,
particularly the ones in Europe, they are much better than ours
now. The offspring of these stallions are better racehorses and
I believe we have done a detriment to the breed.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
Mr. McPeek, you held up that book just a few minutes ago,
and someone had mentioned earlier that there were like 99
acceptable drug withdrawals, and I know that when State racing
commissions get involved in trying to adopt these rules, the
withdrawal time always create confusion and yet I was looking
at the rules in Great Britain and some in Europe, they have
like the 20 most commonly used drugs and they set out very
explicitly the withdrawal times, and anything else detected
would not be allowed. It seems that it would be better for us
to simply decrease the number of acceptable drugs that we have
set the withdrawal times for. Would that make sense to you?
Mr. McPeek. Absolutely. These are therapeutic drugs for the
most part, and I brought several copies with me. There is a box
full of them over there. I anyone would like to take those
home, feel free. But it is. It is very complicated, and we need
to narrow the focus. Instead of having a whole book, it would
be nice if it was on one page.
Mr. Whitfield. It is very complicated, and you look around
jurisdictions, and we know that--Dr. Papp, her testimony was
pretty dynamic. She was talking about rampant misuse and abuse,
and very few trainers are every suspended for any length of
time because there is always legal suits, there is always
withdrawal times. That becomes a big legal issue. It is a
morass. And this term ``layering'', for example, have you ever
heard of the term ``layering''? Have you, Dr. Papp?
Dr. Papp. No.
Mr. Whitfield. Well, I have been told that some people use
this drug, this drug, this drug up to the limit and alone they
wouldn't have much impact but together they can mask other
agents.
Dr. Papp. Stacking.
Mr. Whitfield. Stacking? So I think that is pretty
prevalent also would you say, Dr. Papp?
Mr. McPeek. I have never heard of such a thing. I have
never--I trust the veterinarian to a limit. I also try to keep
them within--you have to rein them in. You have to say OK, we
are not going to let you do that because I don't think we need
to do that, but it is a balance.
Mr. Whitfield. I wish more trainers were like you, Mr.
McPeek, but I get the idea that there are not a lot of like you
out there.
But Mr. Thompson, you mentioned that the ideal thing would
be get these commissions together and come up with these rules.
I mean, I don't want to see the federal government involved
either. We are already involved in that we gave the ability to
do simulcasting through the Interstate Horseracing Act, and I
think we can amend it and set guidelines and still have
authority vested locally. But the problem with letting the
racing commissions try to do this, I have heard time after time
after time where the racing commission would make a decision,
tighten up the rules and then the HBPA or some other horsemen's
group would go to the legislature and they would simply reverse
it.
Mr. Thompson. If these guys got together as a group and
came up with rules, universal rules, nobody would be able to
fight it. If they got together, 36 States, made a plan and did
it, that would be it.
Mr. Whitfield. And we have been waiting for that for a
while.
Mr. Thompson. A long time.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. My time is expired.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now
recognizes the gentleman from Chester County, Mr. Gerlach, for
5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Gerlach. Thank you very much.
Dr. Papp, in your testimony, and I will quote here from
just one line, ``The overuse and abuse of medication is rampant
at our Thoroughbred racetracks and training centers.'' In
Pennsylvania, since primarily your testimony indicates you
normally work out of Pennsylvania, maybe a little bit in New
Jersey, what are the current racing commission obligations and
responsibilities for a veterinarian to report abusive
veterinarian practices with horses? What obligation
professionally under the racing commission rules and
regulations you have to report that conduct?
Dr. Papp. As far as misconduct, there is no rule saying
that one veterinarian has to report misconduct of another
veterinarian or, you know, it is up to their discretion if they
see a trainer abusing the medications. We have to produce day
sheets for every medication and every treatment we do on each
horse every day whether it is on the honor system, whether or
not people put--the veterinarians put down what they actually
give and so.
Mr. Gerlach. Has there been any discussion on that issue,
do you know, in the racing commissions in Pennsylvania, New
Jersey about whether there out to be mandatory requirements for
reporting of abusive activities?
Dr. Papp. I read that they had recently talked about it at
the Oklahoma meeting. However, not in Pennsylvania, to my
knowledge.
Mr. Gerlach. How about from the professional
responsibility? I know, for example, those that are in law have
some ethical responsibilities to report inappropriate conduct
by fellow attorneys, same thing perhaps in the medical
profession. How about in the veterinarian profession? Are there
rules of professional responsibility that the veterinary board
here in Pennsylvania--and I am pretty sure there is one in New
Jersey as well--from a professional responsibility standpoint
what obligations might there be to report conduct that is not
in the appropriate--that is inappropriate conduct for the
handling of a horse and at some point perhaps able to cause
injury to both the horse and the rider at some point?
Dr. Papp. You are able to report it to your State board.
However, there will be an investigation and it basically comes
down to proof, and that many times is difficult, and if you are
unsuccessful with your proceeding forward with that, you can be
basically shunned from the veterinary community.
Mr. Gerlach. Are you aware of any cases brought before the
professional responsibility organization here in Pennsylvania
or New Jersey of a veterinarian who has inappropriately
conducted his or her practice with horses?
Dr. Papp. Actually, I just heard a few days ago that there
is a young veterinarian in New Jersey that was treating
standard bred horses. They had left an injectable vitamin with
a trainer at the training center and that trainer gave the
medication and the horse died, and the veterinarian was
basically put on the chopping block because of this, and that
is the first time I have heard of that actually happening.
Mr. Gerlach. Well, thank you for your testimony today. I
yield back.
Mr. Pitts. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes
the gentleman from Delaware County, Mr. Meehan, for 5 minutes
for questions.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and once again, I want
to thank this distinguished panel, particularly those of you
who I know when you give this kind of testimony, you go back
and talk to some of yours in the industry that may be looking
and thinking, you know, how come you are here stepping up, but
that is a question I have first. As trainers, if you weren't
participating in the doping, aren't you at a competitive
disadvantage? I mean, how do you put out there? You said you
didn't have a horse that went down or you mentioned, I think,
your testimony, how can you compete in an industry like this if
you are not doing the doping?
Mr. Thompson. You got to have a good horse.
Mr. McPeek. I have spent an entire career finding good
horses for people.
Mr. Meehan. And the key is--you get a good horse but you
are still having somebody else on that horse's tail in an
appropriate fashion. You still compete then without the
enhancement?
Mr. McPeek. I don't believe that drugs make a horse that
much better in some cases. I think in many cases, they have a
negative response, even from the Lasix. So if you get a really
good horse, a good horse--I always said the first good horse in
my career, which was Tahana Run, second in the Derby, I could
have fed him rocks and Budweiser and he was going to outrun
most of them. He was that good. But he was that talented. And
so I have spent my time going to horse auctions--Keeneland,
Fasic, Tipton--and I have perfected my eye to find the best
horses. I take those horses, I develop them slowly. We don't
use any--we don't use hardly any medication. We don't treat
young horses with Bute. A lot of times we will make several of
our first starts without Lasix. I won stakes last year without
Lasix at all.
Mr. Meehan. But you as a trainer, if you can find that,
that is wonderful, but you are looking to try to win a race
when we are looking at this industry in addition to trying to
win a particular race, I go back to this concern for the health
and welfare of not just the animals but the jockeys themselves.
So how does your jockey know that the other eight or so horses
out there aren't in a position to break a leg?
Mr. McPeek. The best way I can explain it is, is that I get
a large group of young horses every year, and a lot of them get
claimed off me. I have horses, and let us say I get 50 young
horses. Out of the 50, 40 of them will be average, middle of
the road, good, solid horses that end up going to secondary
circuits. Mr. Dutrow loves claiming off me, OK, but then the 10
horses are the ones that I am after, and my clients ultimately,
we want stake horses, and if we get those top horses out of the
group, and that is very typical percentages, about 20 percent
of your horses in a young crop are going to be good. But the
definition of where they are going and how much--how do they
improve them when I lose them, and they are not getting
improved.
Mr. Meehan. They are going out and they are racing at other
tracks?
Mr. McPeek. They are racing at other tracks.
Mr. Meehan. Claims races and things of that nature.
Mr. McPeek. They claim off me like crazy. They take horses
me in Florida, Kentucky, New York. We are not seeing a dramatic
improvement. So I am not convinced that there is a huge issue
with doping and all these issues that we are talking about
here. The issue is that the rules are inconsistent and they
vary State to State, and we need to get that straightened out.
It will eliminate the confusion.
Mr. Meehan. You said there is not a huge issue with the
doping, and I was struck by your testimony at the outset that
you didn't think that there were--there were other factors that
could also contribute. But the New York Times article lays out
very clearly a pattern of increased injury associated with the
advent of the use of the drugs and the significant growth in
the drugs. Now, how do you describe the discrepancy then when
presumably conditions are getting better?
Mr. McPeek. I have read the articles. I have read them
closely, and I am trying to figure out which horses they are
talking about, and it is the lower-level horses they are
discussing. One thing that I do--you know, and this is a
personal opinion again. I think winter racing is a very
difficult time of year to be racing horses. You know, they are
running over frozen racetracks. In some cases those tracks
aren't maintained as well. And I am not blaming New York Racing
Association for that. But that is a fact. It is more difficult
to handle those surfaces during difficult weather. But, you
know, the issues are complicated. I mean, can you blame the
breakdowns that the New York Times is bringing up to strictly
medication? It is hard to see how they could be clear on that
or for sure.
Mr. Meehan. Well, I looked at the article this morning. I
haven't had a chance to know all of the facts but I am taking
it on its basis that it was not just the doping that was
associated with it but it was putting a horse out there that
had some injuries that they were aware of with regard to some
injuries to the knee and otherwise. And this was the word of
one of the trainers: ``As you are undoubtedly aware, with an
impaired ankle, this horse is a danger to himself, his ride and
everyone on any track where he is allowed to work and race.''
So let me ask you, we use the word earlier about reckless
disregard, and I used that word as a term of art as a former
prosecutor. When somebody knows that a horse has a problem with
a joint or an ankle, uses drugs and puts them out there, would
you consider that to be reckless disregard for the welfare and
concern of that jockey and any others who are racing on that
track?
Mr. McPeek. Well, I know these issues well. OK. When you
say an ankle, OK, has the horse had a P1 sagittal ridge
removed? Does he have cartilage issues? Does he actually have a
fracture that is in the base of the ankle? That is another
deal. If a horse has a fracture in the base of the canon bone
that is causing inflammation and they have injected that joint,
that is absolutely the wrong move. But a veterinarian would
have X-rayed that if he was a good veterinarian or a good
trainer would have taken a picture, made sure that the ankle
was----
Mr. Meehan. We are talking about Dr. Papp's testimony where
you have people walking in with vials of----
Mr. McPeek. I have never seen that. Maybe I am naive. But
the issue--if you are talking about whether it is an ankle or a
knee, you have got so many different versions. Horses have
ankle surgery, they have knee surgery, they have OCD,
osteochondrosis, which is a bone density issue. Those horses
will have joint fluid and they will have--and the rules say
that you are allowed to use certain medication at this point
and so the trainers that--even if they injected that particular
ankle, what depth of knowledge do they have about the horse's
issue and if that depth of knowledge was solid and that the
veterinarian that they are working with has done their due
diligence, then they didn't do anything wrong. However, that is
what the rule systems are set up. That is how they are set up.
And, you know, talking about joint issues, cortisone in joints
I think is something in the long run we need to start
addressing. When you put strictly cortisone in a joint, it in
the long term deteriorates that joint, and we have had over the
course--and I am lucky. I have got clients that will pay for
what we call aleuronic acid and it is poor word but it actually
lubricates a joint. It increases the cartilage. It improves
cartilage growth. And it is a positive. And then a very minimal
amount of cortisone would follow that, or in some cases, none
at all. So how we deal with those physical issues is very, very
complicated. It is not black and white.
Mr. Meehan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I know my time is
expired. Dr. Papp, do you have a last observation? You are a
veterinarian.
Dr. Papp. Yes, just a quick observation is that I agree
with you on the corticosteroid issue. However, I see trainers,
lower-level claiming trainers that are just scraping to get by
that will not pay for an X-ray. So you are talking about good
trainers that will do their due diligence. However, I offer X-
rays in almost all of these situations and the trainers very
frequently respond, I will just put some poultice on it, see
how it looks tomorrow, if it doesn't look as bad, I am going to
keep going, and that is how it is.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Pitts, could I have one second?
Mr. Pitts. Yes, Mr. Thompson, you have the last word.
Mr. Thompson. All right. I would like to ask our future
fans, the students, or did they leave?
Mr. Pitts. They just walked out.
Mr. Thompson. I wanted to see if any of them were coming to
the races next week.
With that, I will ask the witnesses, if we have follow-up
questions, will you please respond in writing? Thank you very
much for your testimony, for the answers. It has been a very
informative hearing.
Again, I want to thank Unionville High School for the use
of your state-of-the-art facilities. I want to thank everyone
for coming. I want to thank the members and the witnesses for
your testimony.
At this time I would request unanimous consent to insert a
statement from Senator Udall and a statement from Dr. Scott
Palmer for the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I remind the members that they have 10 business days to
submit questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to
respond promptly to the questions. Members should submit their
questions by the close of business on Monday, May 14th.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8795.056