HISA now lets trainers pause suspensions until 2nd split test

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority and the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit have changed their policy for handling of provisional suspensions when horses test positive for banned substances. Instead of always immediately imposing a provisional suspension while a trainer awaits testing of a B sample, in many cases a trainer's provisional suspension will be postponed until the other sample has been tested.

The change was announced Friday morning and takes effect immediately.

This policy change was introduced one week after the case of Mac Robertson. The trainer based at Canterbury Park was provisionally suspended after a sample taken from 5-year-old gelding Johnny Up tested positive for altrenogest, a progestin used to stop mares from going into heat. Altrenogest is banned in male horses and sterile female horses.

The second part of the split sample tested negative for altrenogest, and Robertson's provisional suspension was lifted 20 days after it was imposed.

Under the new policy, most trainers whose horses test positive for a banned substance will be able to delay their provisional suspension until the B sample is tested. Trainers must pay the $2,000 fee for a B sample within seven calendar days of requesting it, although trainers who can demonstrate financial hardship can set up a payment plan for the test fee. If the B sample comes back negative, trainers will be refunded the cost for that test.

On a Friday morning Zoom call, HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus said trainers who already have been provisionally suspended will be offered the opportunity to request a B sample under this revised rule.

The rule does not change how covered horses are treated under the regulations, only trainers. In cases of provisional suspensions, horses remain ineligible to run again until the end of the period of ineligibility specified in HISA's protocol or prohibited list, based on the length of time it takes for a substance to exit a horse's system.

There are several cases in which trainers cannot delay their provisional suspensions pending evaluation of the B sample. If the trainer had another horse test positive for the same banned substance within the preceding six months, or if a trainer was notified of another potential violation related to possession or use of a banned substance, the trainer will be provisionally suspended immediately. Furthermore, the guidance released Friday includes a list of specific banned substances for which provisional suspensions cannot be tolled. Among the substances present on that list are amphetamines, EPO, opioids and venoms.

"Policy decisions are based on what's best for the industry, what's best for the greater good, what protects the trainers who are following the rules, the horsemen who are following the rules," Lazarus said Friday morning.

Lazarus framed Friday's changes as an improvement that brings regulation more in line with the original intent of provisional suspension.

"Provisional suspension is not any kind of finding of guilt. It does not, in any way, abrogate the presumption of innocence," Lazarus said. "Because it's not a final finding of guilt, there was never an intention to require trainers who are provisionally suspended from caring for their horses, for disbanding their stable."

Lazarus also addressed the question of whether allowing trainers to toll provisional suspensions undermined the goal of handling alleged violations more quickly under HISA.

"It's basically an extra three weeks, but it's still not waiting until the entire process is complete," she said. "Basically, the way that the committee saw it, it's just another check in this whole assessment that the violation is very likely to be sustained and is a legitimate violation."

Reacting to the setting aside of provisional suspensions, National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association CEO Eric Hamelback said, "While today's changes announced by HISA are undoubtedly good for horsemen and women, they also highlight the fundamental flaws in HISA. As the NHBPA pointed out long before execution, the HISA rule-making process excludes consensus, full transparency and industry involvement, leading to bad policies that often must be reversed and do nothing but sow chaos and confusion.

"The NHBPA will continue to advocate for trainers and owners in court, in Congress and with (HISA) to restore common sense and due process. We don't object to this revision, which appears to have been done on the fly without (Federal Trade Commission) oversight, but we will continue to fight the process that makes such mistakes over and over."