Administrative Rule of the Month - Trainer Continuing Education

More and more professions are adding a continuing education element to their registration and/or licensing requirements. The same can now be said for an Indiana trainer’s license for the flat racing breeds. As of January 1, 2012, there is a four hour continuing education requirement for maintaining a trainer’s license. Since this new requirement is now in effect, 71 IAC 5.5-3-1 Eligibility (for a trainer’s license) has to be IBOP’s administrative rule of the month.

While the requirement is new for 2012, this administrative rule has been on the books for almost two years. In early 2010, the Indiana Horse Racing Commission (IHRC) approved the continuing education requirement. According to the IHRC’s 2010 annual report, there were over 900 licenses issued that involve being a thoroughbred or quarter horse trainer or assistant trainer. Here is exactly how the administrative rule reads:

(h) Beginning no later than January 1, 2012, in order to maintain a current license, trainers must complete at least four (4) hours per calendar year of continuing education courses approved by the commission.

Administrative rules in Indiana cite the portion of Indiana law that grants the authority for the rule. IC 4-31-6-2, which is cited as the authority, states that the IHRC shall establish rules for “(1) procedures for license applications; and (2) license fees.” Our big question is how any continuing education requirement falls into the category of “procedures for licensing applications.” So, where did this administrative rule come from?

This particular administrative rule is almost word-for-word what the Association of Racing Commissioners International put forth as a “Model Rule”:

“Beginning no later than January 31, 2012, in order to maintain a current license, trainers must complete at least four (4) hours per calendar year of continuing education courses approved by the ARCI or the commission in that jurisdiction.”

At present, the main issue is that no other major racing state has approved a similar rule. When we talked with Laura Plato, Director of Operations at the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, she was unaware of any other state with a continuing requirement. Since talking with Ms. Plato, we’ve come to find out that the State of Montana has a similar continuing education rule for trainers.

Using Montana as an example, let’s assume that a trainer from Montana who has satisfied Montana’s continuing education requirement comes to Indiana for a race. Can this trainer get an Indiana license? As you can see from Indiana’s rule, any continuing education program has to be approved by the Indiana Horse Racing Commission. It’s doubtful that a continuing education program in Montana was submitted to the IHRC for approval. Also, where is the list of all the continuing education programs currently approved by the IHRC? Now, imagine Bob Baffert flying in from California, a state without a continuing education requirement, for the Indiana Derby only to find out that he needs four hours of CE before he can be licensed.

In a conversation with the Groom Elite Executive Director, Reid McLellan, he felt that the concept of continuing education for trainers was generally a good idea. (The Groom Elite program is essentially a national continuing education program.) However, he also felt that any rules should be delayed until the industry has built an infrastructure to actually create readily available, approved continuing education programs for all racing jurisdictions. We agree. This rule will have a serious effect on those trainers from out-of-state attempting to get a license in Indiana. With the flat racing breeds being reliant on shippers, this rule is a potential deterrent.

The IHRC or the executive director has the authority to waive a rule “…if compliance with a rule is impractical or unduly burdensome…” but such a waiver has to be requested. A waiver on a case-by-case basis opens this rule to selective enforcement. All administrative rules should be applied evenly and fairly, and in this particular case, the rule should be applied on an ‘all or nothing’ basis to be fair to everyone. This is the only way to make sure that the highest standards and the greatest level of integrity is achieved. We are suggesting that the implementation of this administrative rule be delayed into the future until there is a practical and effective way to deliver approved continuing education to ALL trainers, regardless of where they are based.