Shifting to a Modern Regulatory Framework for Horse Racing in Ontario

The Issue

The AGCO continues to modernize its regulatory approach, demonstrating leadership, innovation and effectiveness in the regulation of horse racing, alcohol and gaming sectors. In order to achieve this objective, the AGCO is continuing its ongoing transition towards risk-based, outcomes-based, and compliance-focused regulation in all lines of business.

Under the standards-based approach, a key AGCO “modern regulator” initiative, the regulatory focus shifts from requiring licensees to comply with a prescriptive set of rules and regulations (a “command and control” regulatory approach) to providing standards that must be achieved.

An important component of the consultation process has been to engage the industry in a dialogue on regulatory modernization, specifically on moving towards a standards-based approach for horse racing. Such an approach would better enable business flexibilities and efficiencies, and support the economic growth of the industry. The transition to a standards-based approach takes time and will require ongoing dialogue and engagement with industry.

The AGCO is also continually modernizing to better reflect the maturity of its industries and evolving societal views. The AGCO continues to refine its role in the promotion of social responsibility in all of its lines of business. Greater public confidence in the gaming industry in general has led to a focus on responsible gambling, while the changing views of the liquor industry place a greater emphasis on responsible use and enjoyment. That is why as part of this consultation process, the AGCO also took the opportunity to discuss with stakeholders and partners its potential role in supporting responsible gambling in horse racing, a role which AGCO will explore going forward.

What We Do

The AGCO provides Race Officials to supervise races conducted at Ontario’s 15 licensed racetracks. These Race Officials are responsible for the enforcement of the Rules of Racing. AGCO Officials direct inspections into alleged rule vio- lations, conduct reviews into regulatory matters, and issue decisions that may include suspensions and/or monetary penalties. They may also add terms and conditions to licences.

Licensees have the right to appeal the decisions made by the AGCO Race Officials under the Rules of Racing to the Horse Racing Appeal Panel (HRAP) an independent, and impartial adjudicative body. Appeals of AGCO proposed refusals, suspensions and revocations of licences under Notices of Proposed Order, are handled by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The majority of HRAP appeals relate to on-track and conduct violations, positive test cases, and related decisions made by AGCO Race Officials and the Registrar. The AGCO has shared all industry feedback regarding HRAP with the panel, and general feedback on the process is included in the following pages.

As the AGCO works with industry to move to a modern regulatory approach, maintaining the integrity of offici- ating will remain a priority. Officiating races and working with racetracks to ensure a good product is a role the AGCO takes seriously. The AGCO has a strong training and education program in place for its Race Officials, and is constantly looking for ways to improve processes and support the delivery of a sound horse racing product. The AGCO is undertaking a review to re-purpose the Central Adjudication Room (CAR) and is piloting the use of different video technologies (e.g. unmanned aerial vehicles, 4K quality mobile cameras, overhead angles). By reviewing the role of the CAR and by taking action to produce and review new camera angles afforded by mobile technologies, the AGCO can determine if new processes and angles can provide an enhanced view of a horse race, which could lead to the eventual removal of some in-race appeals for infractions called by Race Officials. These ideas were brought forward in consultation papers and were on the Roundtable agendas.

What We Heard

Although feedback focused on moving to a more modern regulatory approach, it did not have a significant fo- cus on the movement to standards. Stakeholders expressed a desire to modernize technology in the industry, and simplify the review and appeal processes. Ideas that were brought forward focused on easing burdens for industry participants, and enhancing the horse racing product while improving officiating practices.

Officiating And Technological Enhancements

A common theme raised throughout the consultation was the need to continuously work towards increasing consistency, and transparency in officiating to enhance Ontario’s racing product. It was widely expressed that enhanced video technologies are needed to support these outcomes. New technologies would also benefit racetracks that are looking to promote and grow the sport in a world where the use of social media and video is always growing. Ideas brought forward by the industry include:

• Live-stream workout and training sessions to provide more information to the betting public.
• Improve video footage to enhance race reviews. For example, as interference often occurs on the turns video footage could be improved here, making it easier for the Race Officials to review the race.
• Future iterations of the Video Standards Directive should require higher quality camera shots and equipment.
• Conversations between Race Officials and participants could be recorded in order to have an official record for appeal hearings.

Hand in hand with improving technology came feedback regarding a focus on consistency in officiating to enhance a participant’s ability to learn and grow in the industry, and to better serve the betting public.

Many participants felt that in-race appeal rights could not be removed without improved video technology that results in an increase in consistency of calls. Others still felt that they should not be removed at all. Feedback specific to officiating included:

• Provide post-race race reports that explain calls and decisions made by Race Officials, providing more transparency to the betting public and participants.
• Provide information to the betting public using social media (i.e. Twitter), as many horseplayers are participating online, not at the racetrack.
• Return to having Race Officials explain their calls via simulcast or in a public space so participants and the betting public better understand rulings.
• Video reviews should be conducted by Race Officials weekly with jockeys and drivers at every racetrack to improve race etiquette and develop an understanding of expectations.
• New Race Officials should be trained with sufficient, breed-specific experience to enable proper race reviews across all three breeds.
• There is a need for greater consistency in Race Officials for specific breeds (e.g. having at least one Standardbred expert present during all Standardbred race cards).
• To promote greater industry experience when hiring judges, restrictions limiting a horse owner from being a Race Official could be removed (The proposal assumes new Race Officials would be assigned to race cards without any conflicts of interest).
• Continue to examine Race Official conflict of interest rules.
• Training programs should be comprised of race experiences along with ongoing education and general industry business knowledge. Training programs should also include topics related to horse care and Race Officials should develop knowledge of “normal” equine practices, and welfare issues.
• Race Offices should be required to provide transparent and immediate disclosure of entries, and the regulator should be exercising oversight and authority over the entry process to ensure there are no hidden entries or biased selections when filling races.
• Move to a three-Race Official panel consisting of a representative from the AGCO, racetrack, and a horse person.
• Move to having only one Race Secretary at B racetracks or remove the position entirely.
  • Alternatively, each racetrack should have its own Race Secretary.
• Rules are not consistently or widely enforced. The AGCO should seek better ways to enforce rules, or re-evaluate whether or not these rules should remain in place when many participants do not follow them.
• Penalties should be 50% less at Signature and Grassroots racetracks to reflect smaller purse levels.
• Eliminate calling drivers involved in an incident to discuss the matter. No other sporting referees or officials deliberate with participants to make calls.
• Increase regulatory oversight of industry affairs with a greater focus on racetrack accountability and transparency.
  • Others felt there should be less oversight of industry affairs.
• Create an improved feedback system for bettors and racing participants.

 Recommended racing requirement and eligibility rule changes included:

• Consider the removal of all conflict of interest rules for jockeys owning horses or running against a spouse or family member.
• Consider implementing standards that give responsibility of security, and backstretch or race paddock oversight to racetracks.
• Consistent with the movement to a standards- based approach, one racetrack suggested the AGCO could allow each racetrack to set their own qualifying times as part of their “racetrack rules”, contingent on Registrar review and approval, to provide more operational flexibility to operators.

This request was made with the intent to provide racetracks with the flexibility to lower the restrictions and increase times on qualifiers so that fields can be filled, in recognition of the fact that horse supply is lower than at the time the current rules were implemented. Additional feedback related to qualifying included:

• Following 30 days of not racing, a horse should need to qualify to rejoin fields.
• Every entrant to a graded Thoroughbred stakes race should be present in an announced location in the province at the time of entry for the race.
• Streamline Quarter Horse, first-time starter, and workout requirement timing, to be marked from time of entry.
• Requiring a driver to be at the racetrack forty minutes in advance of a race is unnecessary.

Race Official Review Process & Appeals

Stakeholders indicated some concerns with the appeals process, with a few suggesting the process is not impartial and is biased against participants. It was noted that the AGCO administration and Race Officials have access to legal advice, preparation, and representation at no cost to them, while participants are required to fund their own legal fees. Stakeholder reform ideas included:

• Enable the HRAP to waive the application of a rule in any given case.
• Simplify AGCO processes for Race Official reviews in the interest of reducing paperwork and administrative burdens.
• Allow stays to become automatic at the point of appeal.
• Enhance video technology and officiating consistency in order to remove in-race appeals. Opinions on how this might work varied, including:
  • Eliminating appeals and deciding in-race issues during the race card.
  • Removing appeals for limited cases, such as for specific fine classes, suspensions of 3 days or less, or within races of a certain purse amount. Any decision that results in a placing should remain appealable.
  • Removing appeals for violations such as whipping, kicking, and talking on the racetrack during or after the post parade.