continue doing it.’” In an effort to expedite the process somewhat, all alleged violations for Class 1 drugs now go directly to a hearing officer. That policy went into effect Jan. 1. In the past, all violations were first dealt with by a board of stewards. By sending Class 1 cases directly to a hearing officer, the Racing Commission is eliminating what could amount to several months of waiting for the process to proceed. It may not be too much of a stretch to say that it may take less time to process a murder case in New Mexico from arrest to verdict than it does to resolve a drug case against a racehorse trainer. Consider how the typical case enhanced. The finding of a violation by a racing authority is not subject to review at such hearing and will be considered final by AQHA.” “The EqHWIR will monitor each situation and work with state racing jurisdictions involving medications, abuse and other issues concerning American Quarter Horses,” the EqHWIR said in a statement “and, at the appropriate time, recommend penalties to the AQHA Executive Committee against the offender(s).” AQHA has begun sanctioning trainers who have received medication violation penalties administered by racing jurisdictions. These violations are related to major Class 1 and Class 2 medication violations. AQHA’s actions stem from these penalties issued by the racing jurisdictions. The suspensions issued by AQHA are pending final outcome of their cases. There are currently 19 trainers suspended by AQHA for Class 1 or Class 2 violations. The list of trainers who have been sanctioned can be found on AQHA’s Racing Welfare and Medication page. Beginning Jan. 1, AQHA implemented the Multiple Medication Violations System. This system sets forth penalties for trainers, owners and horses subject of positive drug tests, and, in particular, is designed to assess penalties against trainers, owners and horses subject of multiple positive drug tests. This system is for AQHA’s use only and is not intended to be
evolves. Blood and urine samples are taken from a horse after a race. The sample is sent to the Racing Commission’s testing laboratory in California. If the lab decides the sample is suspicious, it runs a second set of tests to confirm the presence of the suspected drug. If that comes back positive, the purse from the race is withheld and the trainer is notified. The trainer then has the option to send his portion of the sample (called a split) to another lab for testing. If that lab also confirms the presence of the suspected drug, the case is turned over to a board of stewards. The stewards then hear testimony a substitute for the current penalty system used by racing jurisdictions. It is based on the Racing Commissioners International’s multiple medication violations point system. The system rates points associated with various drug infractions and, subsequently, the penalties to be associated with them. The harshest penalties possible (for multiple major violations) include the indefinite suspension of membership (for a human) or registration (for a horse). In addition, a link to an easily searchable database of medication violations will be available at the AQHA Racing website on the Racing Welfare and Medication page. These rulings can also be accessed at www. thoroughbredrulings.com, which is searchable by trainer, horse, jurisdiction and breed. Sale companies will be encouraged to publish points in the catalog or past performance supplements for horses entered in the sale and in race training or of racing age. A medication forum discussing MMVS will take place at 8 a.m. on Jan. 24 at Heritage Place in Oklahoma City. The forum is open to the public. Full details of the MMVS are available on the Racing Welfare and Medication page. AQHA News and information is a service of the American Quarter Horse Association. For more information visit www. aqharacing.com.
and issue a ruling. If the ruling goes against the trainer, the trainer has 10 days in which to file an appeal with the Racing Commission. The Commission in turn appoints an independent hearing officer to consider the evidence. The hearing officer has 30 days to make a recommendation to the Racing Commission. If that recommendation is for the trainer to be sanctioned, the Racing Commission can go along with the recommendation or decide there is not enough evidence against the trainer. What happens frequently during the process is that the trainer, through his attorney, will seek and obtain one or more temporary restraining orders from a state district court. The trainer can seek such a restraining order prior to the case going before a hearing officer or after the Racing Commission has issued its ruling. The restraining orders allow the accused trainer to continue to run horses while his case remains in pending mode. “By constitution they are entitled to due process. And we’re all in favor of due process,” said Mares. “Where we have the problem is these temporary restraining orders. But the commission has no control over what the district court allows them to do. Their lawyers basically say, you’re preventing my client from earning a living and the judge gives them a restraining order.” Only after a district court upholds or overturns the Racing Commission’s ruling is the case considered closed. By that time, six months to a year or longer has gone by. “That’s where the perception comes in that the Commission didn’t do a dang thing,” says Mares. “This guy just got a positive, the stewards ruled on him and he’s still running. They don’t see the big picture that we don’t have any authority to tell a district judge that we’re going to continue (the sanctions). We are acting on a court order.” Mares said a case that began in 2012, when he was still an investigator for the Racing Commission, was finally resolved about six months ago. Mares estimates there are currently about 50 cases pending either before the board of stewards or in district court. SureBet RacingNews.com • February 2014 • Vol. 8 No. 2 11