A persistent debate between the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority and the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association over scientific standards has been reopened, as the two sides are sparring over a recent recommendation by HISA for horsemen to use wearable devices to check horses for signs of atrial fibrillation.
On Wednesday, the National HBPA released a statement attributed to its chief executive, Eric Hamelback, taking issue with the feasibility and practicality of using the devices while also questioning the science underlying the recommendation. In addition, the statement chided HISA and the working group for failing to include any references to sudden deaths that could be attributed to bleeding in the lungs, a common phenomenon known as exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging.
“Unfortunately, [the HISA recommendations] raised more questions than answers,” said Hamelback's statement. “It cited no peer-reviewed published research [studies], offered no scientific references, and provided no direct link to the alleged research behind their claims. For an organization that claims to be guided by veterinary science, this lack of transparency undermines both credibility and trust.”
Citing preliminary findings by a working group studying sudden deaths, HISA issued a release two weeks ago encouraging horsemen to use the devices or veterinary exams to identify horses that may suffer from irregular heartbeats while at rest. The findings had indicated that those horses were at risk of suffering severe atrial fibrillation while exercising.
In a statement issued in response to questions from Daily Racing Form, HISA defended the working group’s findings and the processes by which the group arrived at its recommendations. The statement added that publication of the group’s peer-reviewed research was “forthcoming,” while pointing to several presentations of the preliminary findings at scientific conferences.
“HISA felt it was imperative to share this critical, life-saving information with the racing industry, especially as these findings were only made possible through the collaboration of trainers with researchers from the working group, veterinarians, and wearable device companies, all coming together in the name of equine welfare,” the statement said.
The dust-up over the recommendations is just the latest in a series of disputes between the two sides. The National HBPA is one of a number of organizations inside and outside of racing that have joined lawsuits seeking to have HISA’s enabling legislation declared unconstitutional, and the group has been highly critical of myriad aspects of HISA’s operation, from costs to protocols.
The statement from Hamelback revisited one of the most contentious issues in racing, the use of furosemide, or Lasix, to mitigate bleeding in the lungs. HISA is currently funding several studies involving the effects of race-day Lasix, and although race-day use of the drug is banned for horses in graded stakes or juvenile races in most jurisdictions, the vast majority of horses currently race on it.
Most horsemen continue to support the race-day use of Lasix, citing studies that have shown that the drug is effective in mitigating bleeding in the lungs. Some horsemen are also nearly convinced that HISA is intent on banning the drug once the studies are completed.
Hamelback’s statement explicitly called on HISA to “acknowledge” bleeding as a risk factor for sudden death, and he said that HISA needs to “revisit the Lasix ban.”
The ban on race-day use in juvenile races and graded stakes preceded the advent of HISA.
“If the goal is reducing fatalities, then policies that may be worsening risk must be reexamined honestly, and there is science to back that up,” Hamelback's statement said. “The welfare of racehorses and the integrity of the sport depend on clear, evidence-based leadership. That is not what we are receiving in this last HISA press release” on atrial fibrillation.
The HISA response did not mince words on the HBPA’s criticism of the latest recommendations, making it clear that the two sides remain far apart on putting their differences aside.
“Citing decades-old studies as definitive evidence is disingenuous and flies in the face of reason and the ever-evolving nature of veterinary science,” the HISA statement said. “While the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association has issued dubious statements in the past, it is shocking that they would try and dissuade trainers and veterinary practitioners from applying these potentially life-saving measures to horses simply because they oppose HISA.”
:: Want to learn more about handicapping and wagering? Check out DRF's Handicapping 101 and Wagering 101 pages.