Churchill Downs, Inc. and the New York Racing Association (NYRA) have taken legal action against the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) over what they claim are “illegal” fees. The two prominent horse racing organizations filed a federal lawsuit alleging that HISA has threatened to prohibit them from holding races until they pay the required fees.
The crux of the issue lies in the fees imposed by HISA, which Churchill Downs and NYRA argue are “illegally imposed.” Instead of basing fees on a state’s proportion of races, HISA calculates fees based on winners’ prize money. This approach, according to the lawsuit, undermines states’ autonomy and places an undue financial burden on race organizers.
In response to the lawsuit, HISA has stood firm in defending its mission and the Assessment Methodology Rule, approved by the Federal Trade Commission. HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus emphasized that the rule is essential for funding the organization’s oversight of the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Program and the Racetrack Safety Program, as mandated by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act.
Despite HISA’s assertions, Churchill Downs and NYRA remain adamant in their opposition to what they perceive as unfair fees. The lawsuit underscores the broader tension between national regulation, as embodied by HISA, and states’ rights in overseeing horse racing activities.
HISA, established under the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, aims to standardize regulations across the horse racing industry and enhance safety measures for horses and participants. By centralizing oversight of racetrack safety and anti-doping protocols, HISA seeks to promote integrity and fairness in the sport.
However, the private nature of HISA has raised legal questions about the extent of its authority. Past legal challenges have questioned the constitutionality of granting a private entity governmental powers, leading to revisions in the Act and increased oversight by the Federal Trade Commission.
Churchill Downs and NYRA’s lawsuit is not an isolated incident, as other racing organizations and states have also expressed reservations about HISA’s regulatory framework. The Texas Racing Commission, for example, does not acknowledge HISA’s authority, while West Virginia and Louisiana are navigating legal uncertainties as they adhere to state rules amid ongoing legal disputes.
The clash between Churchill Downs, NYRA, and HISA underscores the complex dynamics at play in the horse racing industry. As stakeholders navigate legal challenges and regulatory disputes, the future of national oversight in horse racing remains uncertain. Ultimately, the resolution of these conflicts will shape the landscape of horse racing governance and safety protocols for years to come.