Gil Winston: HISA vs RHSA – A Deep Dive

I read Joe Faraldo’s article attacking the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) as an argument that its existence is nothing more than a dream come true for the likes of dubiously named People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other organizations out to end horse racing in America.

He appeared to make a number of great points, so I decided to do a deep dive and verify the merit of his allegations and see if I came up with similar conclusions.

The government document that identifies the way HISA is changing the way horse racing will be monitored in the US, is more than 50 pages long (pages 24574 through 24626 of the Federal Register of 4/8/24). For those who think that is not too bad, these pages contain three columns of small, printed words which makes deciphering a monumental task for anyone interested.

One of the issues that caught my eye was the HISA use of so-called “regulatory veterinarians” who will hold the careers of horsemen in their hands. Who are these angels of mercy? There are 177 references to these individuals throughout the document, so they appear to be important. The Regulatory Veterinarian gets into action after an “Equine Injury” (page 24576) that occurred during training or racing. The definition of a training injury is easily manipulated to fit some agenda. If a horse is injured while returning from a training session, it may be interpreted as a training injury. We can all think of freak accidents that may occur that may be considered training injuries if that was the intent.

In addition, the Regulatory Veterinarian decides who is on the Veterinarian’ List (pages 24576 and 24577). This all-important Regulatory Veterinarian “shall chair the Racetrack Risk Management Committee…” (page 24580). There is much more to the monumental responsibility of the role.

So, who is this all-knowing ruler? Get ready. “In those jurisdictions where the state racing commission does not elect to enter into an agreement with the Authority to establish a Regulatory Veterinarian, the racetrack is required to appoint a Lead Veterinarian to carry out the duties, obligations and of the Regulatory Veterinarian…” (page 24582), and there are additional words that emphasize that this Regulatory Veterinarian may be a political appointee by the racing commissions, whose incompetence led to the creation of HISA, and by mislabeled racetracks of which many would love to see horse racing removed from their bottom line so that they can focus on their profitable casino and sports betting operations.

You will love this one about the qualifications of the most critical position regarding the requirement of Regulatory Veterinarians being licensed. “The rule is amended for greater flexibility in light of the nationwide veterinary shortage…” (translation: Few sane veterinarians would want to risk their livelihood by getting in the middle of this political morass) “…and accommodates the possibility that a jurisdiction MIGHT NOT REQUIRE the Regulatory Veterinarians be LICENSED by the state in which they perform regulatory duties.” (page 24582).

So, a political appointee can make veterinary decisions based on… politically motivated criteria? Perish the thought. Of course, the Act ensures that only real vets will step in, when necessary, as the documents covers their respective gluteus maximus configurations by stating “…clarify that the Regulatory Veterinarian is restricted from prescribing “medications” for any Covered Horse…” Important note. The word, medications, living between the quote marks is in the document, itself. Why the quote marks? As previously mentioned, there are 177 references to Regulatory Veterinarian throughout the document. Peruse the nightmare at your leisure, if you so desire.

There are other glaring issues with HISA to consider, but it was this Regulatory Veterinarian that should concern most horsemen, and fans of horse racing as one can imagine the direst end game in the future of horse racing in The United States.

But what is this new RHSA legislation that is being promoted? Opponents seem unable to define why HISA is superior to RHSA. Let’s hear some real concerns as to why RHSA should not be implemented, so we can decide for ourselves.

Rooney: Congress Will Not Repeal HISA,

As we see from Tim Rooney, President of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the opposition to RHSA has nothing to do with the deficiencies horsemen found in HISA. He speaks of the problems in the horse racing industry that HISA addressed and the difficulties in creating new legislation. He does not mention “how” HISA handles these issues. It is the “how” that has horsemen up in arms.

I find it noteworthy that his opening salvo addresses the difficulty new legislation faces. “In order for any bill to become law, it needs a lot of support…HISA had more than 260 cosponsors…Republicans and Democrats. RHSA only has one…both are Republicans…Without bipartisan support…bills don’t go anywhere in Congress.” He speaks the truth. However, should we accept legislation that may end horse racing because it would be too difficult to change it?

One would think the opening remark would address the alleged quality of HISA as opposed to the inequality of RHSA, not because it’s too hard to pass. Are there no positive qualities worth highlighting? It is, “Hey, look at us, there is a problem, and we did something.” They should have done something – else.

The next paragraph is typical political doublespeak. He speaks of “the lack of merits of the legislation” by engaging in ad hominem attacks, i.e., “the very same people” does not address merit, one way or the other.

Then he offers his opinion that the “goal of RHSA is to repeal HISA, return the industry to the state-by-state patchwork regulatory system…” Is that the goal? RHSA was created because of the problem that was destroying horse racing, and HISA made it worse.

How did we get to this state where the future of horse racing in America hangs by a thread, as the anti-horse racing political group fights for its elimination?

There were well-meaning revolutions that overthrew the likes of Tsar Nicholas II, The Weimar Republic, the Shah of Iran and the Cuban Dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Comparing the nightmare results of those good-intentioned revolutions to HISA is not the point. My point is that history has shown, time and again, that well-meaning efforts can be led astray by those with ulterior motives.

The justification for federal legislation came from the realization that the industry was incapable of policing its own. Dead racehorses and convicted drug dealers made it clear that business as usual was not going to be tolerated. This inarguable truth was the opening for the anti-horse racing faction to spring into action.

Can a new national regulator clean up horse racing? – CBS News

In summary, the problems that led to the creation of HISA were real. State racing commissions failed. HISA has taken horse racing out of the frying pan and into the fire. New legislation or a complete overhaul of HISA is required or expect an end to horse racing in America.

You think it impossible? Then you need to spend more time studying history. American horse racing was outlawed in the early 20^th century. New York racetracks were completely shut down in 1911. Most jockeys went to Europe. Racing did not return in full force until after World War II, 35 years later.

Horse racing – Breeding, Betting, Tracks | Britannica

by Gil Winston, for Harnesslink