July 2012 Newsletter Archive

For a copy of IBOP's July newsletter, follow this link: http://freepdfhosting.com/ccbbe2fb40.pdf

Administrative Rule of the Month - Trainer Continuing Education (Revisited)

In January, 2012, IBOP made Trainer Continuing Education (CE) our first ‘Administrative Rule of the Month’. More specifically, ‘71 IAC 5.5-3-1 Eligibility’ is an administrative rule that outlines the requirements for flat racing trainers to have a license in Indiana. As a point of reference that first ‘Administrative Rule of the Month’ can be found at: http://www.ibopindy.blogspot.com/2012/01/administrative-rule-of-month.html

IBOP’s comments on the CE aspect of the rule had the following conclusion, “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.”

At their March 7, 2012, meeting, the Indiana Horse Racing Commission (IHRC) did decide to modify this administrative rule. During this meeting, the IHRC approved an updated version of the rule that, among other things, did delay the implementation of the CE until 2013. This emergency rule was filed with the Indiana Register on March 8, 2012, and now reads:

"(h) Beginning in 2013, trainers must demonstrate, prior to licensure, that they have attended a four hour continuing education course approved by the Commission within the past two calendar years. Trainers completing an approved continuing education course in 2011 or 2012 will have met this requirement through the 2014 racing season. The continuing education requirement does not apply to trainers who have started horses six or fewer times in Indiana the previous year. Such trainers may start up to six horses in a year before he or she must fulfill the continuing education requirement."

Other than the delay of the effective date to 2013, IBOP believes that the IHRC has actually made this rule even worse. The most objectionable aspects of this change are the double standards the IHRC has created. First, the IHRC only applies this continuing education requirement to thoroughbred and quarter horse trainers and not standardbred trainers. Secondly, by now exempting trainers with less than six starts from the CE requirement, the IHRC has created another double standard by treating one group of flat racing trainers differently than another group of flat racing trainers. At the March 7th meeting, the Indiana Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association objected to the exemption for trainers having six or less starts in Indiana on the basis that every trainer should be treated the exact same way. We agree.

IHRC Executive Director Joe Gorajec addressed the need for a CE requirement by saying, “And the rationale behind it is this, the purpose of the continuing education is, of course, trying to get trainers more familiar with our rules, our regulations, things about the training of a horse that might be new or different to them to give them information that they otherwise wouldn't have as a way of being able to perform their particular job better.” Given the stated goals of the CE requirement, to have any credibility in the ‘why’ this is necessary, the IHRC would have to include standardbred trainers. Then, to exclude a subset of the flat racing trainers licensed in Indiana defies logic on a number of fronts, but more specifically, if one of the IHRC’s stated goals is “to get trainer more familiar with our rules, our regulations…” then logic says that trainers with six or less starts in Indiana might be those less likely to be familiar with Indiana’s rules and regulations.

Undaunted, Executive Director Joe Gorajec went out of his way to attempt to explain why this rule change does not create a double standard. He said, “There is one thing I just want to kind of nip in the bud and share it with the commissioners because it's going to be something that will be discussed about the horsemen as far as the trainers who race less than, six times or less and trainers who race more, that the Commission has a double standard. That some trainers can come in and not have to take the classes and other trainers have to take the classes. A double standard is when you have two people, okay, in the same circumstances, you treat them differently. These are clearly not the same circumstances. You have one trainer that's participating in the race meet at certain levels, seven or more. Most of these people that have already gone through the class, some of these people have 20, 30, 40 horses. So it's not apples and apples when you have a 20-horse stable that focuses on Indiana. And then you have someone from either Kentucky or Illinois that has one horse that he sends to race at Indiana Downs or Hoosier Park and starts three or four times. I just want to bring that out there because that's something that I'm sure that the Commission and staff is going to hear.”

The commission and staff should hear the term ‘double standard’ associated with this CE rule because that is exactly what it creates. If you consult http://dictionary.reference.com/, you will find the following definitions: “double standard n. any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another.” To compare: “single standard n. A single set of rules and principles applying to everyone.” In the 1988 hit movie, “Bull Durham,” one of the lead characters, Annie Savoy, said, “The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self- awareness.” When management by exception is the norm, you have to continually find new justifications for your actions irrespective of logic or of awareness to your own actions and words. In other words, you have to fool yourself into believing yourself. And, in this case, you have to fool a group of commissioners too.

Without any awareness to logic and to your own actions and words, the next step is then to become defensive and make further bad decisions. In 2013, what will happen when that trainer attempts to race a 7th time without having gone through a four hour CE course? Is the IHRC going to rescind the trainer’s license prior to the 7th start or not let the trainer enter for a 7th start? Theoretically, with this rule, a trainer could have his or her 6th start in Indiana on the same race card as the 7th potential start. If the trainer doesn't have the CE, do the stewards revoke the license in between those starts? What if a trainer makes a 7th start without having taken the CE and it's not noticed until after the race? Is this grounds for purse forfeiture or a fine? Is the IHRC really going to count trainer's starts in Indiana across two meets?

At this point, IBOP still stands by our conclusion from January’s ‘Administrative Rule of the Month.’ To go further, we believe that this administrative rule should be repealed in its entirety. We know that repeal will never happen since that would be an admission of a mistake. At the very minimum, a more common sense-oriented and logical approach needs to be applied. When comparing the IHRC’s attempted CE requirement for flat racing trainers versus another profession in Indiana that requires continuing education, the insurance industry, we see vast differences.

First, the insurance industry has a statutory requirement for pre-licensing education and continuing education. There is no statutory requirement for the IHRC to selectively apply a continuing education requirement to anyone and we still question whether the IHRC has the statutory authority to even require CE. Second, the insurance industry has a definition for an hour of CE, they have an advisory council of knowledgeable industry organizations that make recommendations as to what courses should be approved for CE, and they have procedures to establish proof that participants actually complete a CE course. The IHRC has none of these items incorporated into their CE "rules." They are also ill-equipped to manage any CE requirement in an industry where quality education programs ARE available through national meetings of horsemen's associations, yet would lack the approval of the IHRC to count as an hour of CE. In fact, at this point, the entire racing industry is ill-equipped to manage a CE requirement, and that is why only Indiana and Montana have such rules. Yet, based upon the continued over-regulation, IBOP is now supportive of a CE requirement for the five commissioners who make these decisions.