National Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association, Inc. 870 Corporate Drive, Suite 300; Lexington, KY 40503; Phone: (859) 259-0451; Fax: (859) 259-0452; [email protected]

For Immediate Release CONTACT: Remi Bellocq, CEO, National HBPA (859) 259-0451

National HBPA Opposed to RCI Five-Year Plan as Currently Proposed Lexington, KY – April 18, 2011 – The National HBPA Board of Directors met on Friday, April 15, 2011 and unanimously agreed that it cannot support the five-year plan announced by the Association of Racing Commissioners International (RCI) on March 28th to “embrace a strategy to phase out drugs and medication in horse racing” as it is currently written. As the national representative of the largest number of horsemen who would be directly impacted by what the RCI proposes, the National HBPA takes issue with RCI’s strategy of pushing a proposal with such far-reaching implications without initially conferring with any of the major representative horsemen’s groups, including the National HBPA. The National HBPA agrees that within the five-year goal established by the RCI, a national plan that addresses the concerns it has raised could be attainable. However, the vagueness of the RCI’s proposal and its pre-determined outcome are cause for great concern. Currently, there is no allowable race-day medication in the U.S. other than the permitted race-day use of Furosemide and/or other adjunct medications used to prevent Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (EIPH). Thus, the issue should not be about “race-day medication,” as stated by the RCI, but rather the race-day use of anti-bleeding medications used to prevent EIPH. Further, given the five-year window the RCI has proposed, the National HBPA feels it is not unreasonable for our industry to allow the time needed to allow voices to be heard from other industry stakeholders beyond those who have weighed-in thus far, including jockeys, some in the veterinary and scientific communities, racing secretaries, casual fans, dedicated horseplayers (and their organizations), and the racing media, among others. Therefore, the National HBPA proposes that, before committing to the RCI’s or any other plan or proposal, it will dedicate its Summer Convention scheduled to be held on July 21-24 in Seattle, WA entirely to a thorough analysis of the RCI plan.

Continued…

1

In so doing, the National HBPA will prepare speaker forums charged with addressing key questions we feel have not been sufficiently addressed, including: 1.

What might be some of the unintended consequences of the RCI’s proposal?

2.

Beyond just eliminating race-day anti-bleeding medications, how do we address the scientifically proven fact that over 80% of racehorses are affected by EIPH during their racing careers?

3.

Despite clear evidence to the contrary (See “Analysis” below), a negative public perception of medication use in racing lingers. Would the RCI proposal take steps to correct this misperception? What is the role that horsemen should take to address this public misperception?

4.

What alternative non race-day therapies or best practices for treating EIPH exist that would be available to horsemen and veterinarians? How do trainers from other parts of the world adjust their training methods to compensate for EIPH, and is this possible given the training environment in the U.S.?

5.

What would the economic impact of this rule change on U.S. racing be?

6.

What factors – such as climate, stress, etc. – make U.S.-based racehorses more prone to EIPH than horses in other countries?

Analysis of 2009 – 2010 Medication Violations in North America Using information provided by the RCI and obtained from published data of The Jockey Club, we submit the following: Year 2009 2010

# of Races 54,121 50,918

# of Starters 446,196 417,192

# of Violations 565 572

# of Licensed Trainers 5,951 6,071

If two horses are tested from each race and average field size is slightly more than eight horses, then horse racing tests approximately 25% of its participants during each and every of its live events. We would argue this is a standard that is equal to or exceeds the testing in any other sport. Year 2009 2010

# of Violations # of Horses Tested 565 108,242 572 101,836

% Positive 0.52% 0.56%

% in Compliance 99.48% 99.44%

If we consider the Class 1-2-3 violations (4 & 5 cover therapeutic medications) and correlate that to the licensed trainers, with an assumption that no trainer received more than one violation, then: Year 2009 2010

# of 1-2-3 Violations 117 119

# of Trainers 5,951 6,071

% Positive 1.97% 1.96%

% in Compliance 98.03% 98.04% Continued…

2

As these statistics show, approximately 99.5% of all horses tested in North America and 98% of trainers (with regard to non-therapeutic medications) are in compliance with the existing, scientifically proven medications standards for threshold levels and withdrawals times. While concerns over the negative public perception are legitimate, they are in many regards an emotional one. Moreover, indirectly defaming all trainers as “needle” pushers because they use an approved and scientifically proven therapy for EIPH will not help matters. While we address the public perception, it is equally important to correct the public’s misconception. The National HBPA is dedicated to gathering divergent and reasonable viewpoints on this issue and will continue to rely upon the reasoned, professional, and scientific approach to the medication policy that statistics show serves our industry well. ###

3