Q and A With New ADMC Committee Member David Ingordo

Last week, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority announced that its Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) standing committee was replacing three outgoing members with new ones. Among them was David Ingordo, arguably the first hands-on horseman the group has seated. The committee is required by federal law to be composed of four independent members and three industry representatives. The committee plays a key role in advising and assisting HISA with the establishment of comprehensive rules and protocols for its ADMC Program, including the prohibited substances list, laboratory testing standards, and in- and out-of-competition testing programs. The daily operations of the ADMC Program are managed by the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU), a subsidiary of Drug Free Sport International, which works to ensure horseracing is conducted in accordance with the ADMC Program. We talked to Ingordo how his years on HISA's horsemen's advisory committee shaped his view of the current rules, what he hopes to bring to the table as an active horseman.

SF: When it's working at its best, how does the ADMC Standing Committee function?

DI: The purpose of this committee is to recommend the anti-doping and medication rules to the HISA Board who then submit them to the FTC for approval. They also provide guidance on some of the more challenging issues that arise in connection with the enforcement of these rules under the ADMC program. Frankly, its function is a critically important one and it is a serious responsibility to be involved on this committee, making recommendations to HISA and fixing any of the problems with those rules and their enforcement.

SF: Do you have monthly meetings? How does it work?

DI: I haven't served on the committee yet and the appointment officially starts in January when we have our first meeting. As I understand, that's when we'll lay out the itinerary and the agenda for the year. I understand the expectations are for us to be active and proactive on getting policy right.

SF: How many people are on the committee?

DI: There is a total of seven members, four “independent,” from outside the industry and three “industry.” The Committee chairman must also sit on the HISA Board. Charles Scheeler is an independent and he is both the chairman of the HISA Board and the ADMC Committee. You have three industry members, who will now be Dr. Jeff Blea, myself, and veterinarian Dr. David Sykes. I had my first introductory conversation with Chairman Scheeler on Wednesday. I was impressed with him and energized by the thoughts that we shared for what he called “ADMC 2.0.”

SF: Dr. Jeff Blea obviously works in the trenches, but you are probably the person with the most hands-on horse-training experience that the ADMC has ever had on board. Would you say that's true? And what have they been lacking in practical advice that you can bring?

DI: I would like to discuss that. Jeff Blea, who is a world-class veterinarian, and remains on the committee, was quite hands-on before he became the Equine Medical Director for the state of California. I've worked with and respected Jeff since my teens, so I know him first as a practicing veterinarian. Just because he's gone over to the regulatory side doesn't mean he has forgotten how to work with horses and trainers or how racing works. I would contend that Jeff is still hands-on in his current role. His experience on the racetrack is on par with mine, but he is a veterinarian; I'm not. I would say the same about (outgoing member) Dr. (Lynn) Hovda, who is a very sharp person. Barry Irwin is the other outgoing committee member, and he would rightly argue that he has a lot of knowledge about all that is racing as well!

To rephrase it that I'm a different type of hands-on appointment, I would say that is very true. I'm different than anyone on the Committee because I'm looking at the rules from a trainer, owner, gambler and even a Thoroughbred auction point of view. I'm not from a veterinary or a regulatory background. I'm coming to this appointment with what I see as a practical, common-sense way of dealing with the X's and O's of training and racing horses safely, because this is my livelihood.

SF: Cherie DeVaux, your wife, is a trainer, and you work closely with her in various aspects of the business. How will you represent that viewpoint on this committee?

DI: My wife is a horse trainer as are many of my family and friends, so I'm sure I will get a lot of their solicited and unsolicited viewpoints…like it or not! Joking aside, I have great respect for the job of a horse trainer. It is the toughest job in our industry, adding to everything that is the responsibility of the trainer: wins versus losses, the horse and employees, the bills and results of post-race testing. My goal is to listen, represent their viewpoint where pertinent, help improve what rules are already in place and fix those that need replacement. So not only for my wife, but for all the people who train–family, friend or otherwise–it's imperative we to get these rules and their enforcement right.

SF: As a follow-up to that question, you've been on the HISA Horsemen's Advisory Committee for two years. What sort of things did you hear from horsemen there that you feel you can bring to this committee that will be helpful?

DI: The words that many trainers and owners used when calling and discussing their issues and qualms with HISA were `common sense' and `practical.' I'm hopeful that I can help the ADMC committee and HISA by articulating and helping to understand what rules and regulations might make sense in theory but not in practice. Chairman Scheeler called it the “ADMC 2.0” in acknowledgement of that when we spoke on our call, knowing we need to iron out the issues with the rules that are currently in place that we are all aware of. That was exciting for me to hear and to be able to share with horsemen.

SF: In terms of what you've heard from horsemen until this point, where have they been right in their objections and where do you think they've been wrong?

DI: They've been right and effective in voicing their objections, pointing out the well-reported issues and helping develop practical solutions by working with HISA. Early on, they drew attention to how some racing jurisdictions were keeping to the old rules, not following the updated HISA rules. There are many great lobbyists inside the Horsemen's Advisory Group and within the broader industry who have done an excellent job communicating when they see a problem and articulating, “This is a problem that needs to be fixed and here is a solution that works for horsemen.”
The wise horsemen have used their political clout, to the benefit of all horsemen, to get the ear of HISA and get problems identified and fixed quickly, faster than I have experienced pre-HISA. By working with HISA and through the process, horsemen in general have helped all the participants across the board. My personal experience is that HISA and Lisa Lazarus want to get it right and when you approach HISA professionally, you have a great chance of success getting substantial changes made.

SF: And where have they been wrong?

DI: I think a broad mistake that horsemen have made is not taking the time to understand HISA and to get a deeper understanding of what the facts are versus the fiction, not developing their own relationship and understanding of HISA. I do not think that horsemen as a group had a good understanding that most of these rules were in place pre-HISA and HIWU, but now they're being enforced more than they were previously. A lot of horsemen got bad professional advice on how to navigate the process to work with HISA. The professionals that are advising horsemen, they need to recalibrate how they work within the new regulatory framework.

As is wont at the racetrack, rumors circulate, and horsemen often are getting HISA information from a slanted or wrong viewpoint or interpretation, often from trade organizations that are supposed to be there to help horsemen and advocate for them. Horsemen are getting their understanding of policy from second- or third-hand sources and often the truth is nowhere near what they are being told. Horsemen have been given the impression HISA is against them, and instead of seeking their own understanding and relationship with HISA, they accept what they are told via the rumor mill.

It has happened to me so I understand how easy it is to not do your own homework on the subject.

SF: You are known for being bluntly honest. You're a huge HISA supporter, but what have they done wrong?

DI: You're right. I'm a huge HISA supporter because it's here, and if it's here, we should make a conscious effort to work with it.

I didn't agree with the provisional suspensions. I think they were a mistake in how they were executed in the beginning.

I don't think HISA understood exactly what happens on the backside as far as how horses are trained and all the interworking parts of a backstretch, the whole ecosystem. I don't think they understood the sport from the bottom to the top. I think they went in with good intentions, but I don't think they initially had enough information on how to build this out the right way.

SF: Give me an example.

DI: When HISA was created, they had people who were independent from the industry designing the program. And in theory, having people with no conflicts of interest and independent is a good idea because then you're not getting cronyism, you're not getting `well, my mother's mother's mother did it this way, so we've got to do it that way.' But the mistake was not having a good team of horsemen and industry participants advising from the beginning on these rules and being part of that conversation. They needed an experienced Horsemen's Advisory Board from day one. The way I understand it, USADA wrote a lot of these rules without industry input and Lisa and her team inherited them.

The analogy I used was they built this beautiful building and then went and tried to put the foundation under it after it was built. And that just doesn't work from a building standpoint. I think the biggest mistake that HISA made in the beginning was not getting more hands-on active industry participants, whether they're trainers, vets, or owners. With that, I think HISA could have figured out some of the operational flaws before it was put into operation.

SF: Do you think that the way the drugs of human abuse were treated was a mistake?

DI: I think that HISA perhaps didn't know fully what we were dealing with on the backside. I would go as far as to say we all didn't fully know. How many meth positives were there before HISA? I don't remember it being such an issue, but I know people were abusing it before HISA. Maybe they weren't testing for that as much as they should? Maybe it wasn't in the budget of a racing jurisdiction to test for meth or Metformin? Maybe laboratories made judgement calls on what they through were trace amounts? I don't really know the answer, but I think it could have been handled differently.

SF: I asked you what HISA did wrong. So tell me what they've done right.

DI: I would say the number one achievement of HISA thus far is saving horses' lives. HISA has been a big part of bringing us back from the brink of that awful day at Saratoga in the not-too-distant past.

It is important to remember that many of the rules were created pre-Lazarus coming on board, so addressing bad rules and being open to change is something that was much harder pre-HISA. HISA having an open door to horsemen to come in and debate and change bad policies and the willingness to listen and work with industry participants to find solutions.

SF: Give me some examples of things that have been changed due to the ADMC.

DI: The dropping of the provisional suspensions is huge. Improved communication and working with trainers on their positives over the course of the last year has greatly improved. HISA is making strides towards laboratory unification – testing for the same substances at the same level at all the labs, this has never been done before and it is now standard under HISA.

SF: You have a lot on your plate already. How much time do you spend on this and why is it important—both to the industry, but also to you?

DI: That I have a lot on my plate is an understatement! Kidding aside, it is important to understand that the people on the ADMC, or the HISA Safety Committee, or the Horsemen's Advisory Committee, are all doing a civic duty to horseracing by giving their time. Participating in the ADMC is one way I can give back to the industry on a subject matter that is critically important that we get right. I spend anywhere from one to three hours a day on HISA issues many days of the week. It's important to me because right now, as we're doing this interview, these are the rules that our game is to follow at a federal level. So, we need them to be the best, the fairest, the most accurate that they can be. It's important to me because people I care about all get up in the morning to play this game. I love racing and it's all I'm interested in doing. I do all the work I do to be able to watch horses compete at the track. It's a passion and if I can be part of a solution, to have this industry around for future generations and help other people enjoy it, then I've done my part. That's what I feel like the task at hand here is: getting this right so we can race horses safely and treat people fairly.

SF: As an industry, do we have to get HISA right to survive?

DI: Everyone has an opinion on what happened to get HISA here and I believe we had decades to get it right as an industry on our own, and we didn't. I respect that people have different opinions on how to do it, but we need to get HISA right. The country right now is divided politically, and our industry is divided on HISA. If we don't get racing right, and the numerous external forces get their way, we won't have anything to be fighting over, racing will be extinct. We all need to be statesmen and women and to reach across the proverbial aisle and work together. There has got to be give-and-take on both sides because the horsemen aren't 100% right and the regulatory agencies aren't 100% right.

So, do I think we need HISA to survive at the end of the day? Yes.