A. Brief Description of the Issue

Adding a commission vet check option post race for claims. Removing the risk of claiming injured, ill or unsound horses.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
Lowers risk to owners of claiming an un-raceable horse or trainers pushing out a "hot potatoe". Might help to keep trainers honest in the placing of questionable horses into certain races and help boost owner confidence in claiming new stock.

Who does the issue affect?
the future of the industry in Alberta.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
Claiming rules

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
Helping to build confidence in the claiming process.

How will the solution fix the problem?
giving Claimants the opportunity to have the vet assess the horse post race before making claim official, avoiding potentially claiming a horse with known or pre-existing problems.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
Increase Stakeholder confidence in racing integrity and hold some accountability to trainers in entering certain horses.

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Giving owners some added security in the claiming process

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
possible decline in eligible runners due to underlying conditions that may pass morning vet check but could result in horse not being claimed if trainer/owner is trying to offload a horse. This could potentially decrease the field size. Manpower concerns, having the ability of a vet to complete the post race observations.

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.
Owners and trainers that have also had experience in racing in jurisdictions that have this rule in place already (Woodbine)
Agree that adding this option would be beneficial to racing in AB

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
HBPA, have not had the opportunity to bring it to them as deadline was looming.

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

Yes, Ontario
12.32.01 The Stewards shall rule a claim invalid, if:

At the option of the claimant, approved post-race testing procedures discloses that an improper medication or drug was found to be present in the sample of the claimed horse which is reported in the analysis report from the lab. Once the claim has been declared invalid by the Stewards the claimant must request within 72 hours that the horse be returned to the original owner;
At the option of the claimant, if the horse has been found ineligible to the event from which it was claimed;
The horse dies on the racetrack; or
The horse suffers an injury which requires euthanasia while on the racetrack as determined by either a Commission Veterinarian or an Official Veterinarian.
At the option of the claimant, if before the end of the Observation Period:
The Commission Veterinarian or Official Veterinarian places the horse on the Veterinarians’ List;
The Commission Veterinarian or Official Veterinarian observes the horse is bleeding from the nostrils;
The Commission Veterinarian or Official Veterinarian determines the horse has suffered an injury which requires euthanasia; or
The horse dies.
12.33 Claimants may choose to have the horse observed by an Official Veterinarian or Commission Veterinarian. A claimant or their representative must confirm with the Stewards or such other Official as set out in the track rules that a horse is going to be observed. If the claimant chooses to waive the Observation Period, Rule 12.32.01(e) shall no longer apply.

12.33.01 With respect to the Observation Period, the claimed horse shall be taken directly and without delay, to the designated observation area; failure to comply may result in the following:

The Observation Period being waived,
The claim not being invalidated, and/or
Such other action, as determined by the Stewards.
12.33.02 The observation shall take place as close to one hour after the race as practical.

12.33.03 Except in the case of an emergency, no horse shall receive treatment before the end of the Observation Period and any such treatment shall be reported to the Stewards as soon as practical.

12.33.04 The Association shall create a process for the Observation Period referred to in Rule 12.32.01(e), which must be outlined in an Association’s track rules.

12.34 When the Stewards rule that a claim is invalid:

The amount of the claiming price shall be repaid to the claimant;
Any purse monies earned subsequent to the date of the claim and before the date on which the claim is ruled invalid shall be the property of the claimant;
The claimant shall be responsible for any reasonable costs incurred through the care, training or racing of the horse while it was in his or her possession; and
The horse shall be returned to the original owner in the same material condition.

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

PART 4
CLAIMING RULES
310 g Application
(1) This Part applies to all forms of racing.
(2) A *licensed owner entering a *horse in a claiming race does so subject to the provisions of
this Part.
311 g Purpose of claiming races
(1) *Claiming races are a way of classifying *horses so that they *race at levels in which they
are competitive.
(2) The purpose of *claiming is to avoid a superior horse from dominating *horse races at a
certain level and so having an unfair advantage.
(3) Claiming prevents an unfair advantage by moving horses to different stables for the
purpose of enhancing horse racing in the jurisdiction in which the horse is claimed.
(4) A horse claimed in Alberta for a purpose other than live horse racing in Alberta *violates
the spirit and intent of the claiming rules and weakens the Alberta racing industry.
PROHIBITED AND LIMITED CLAIMS
312 g Licensed owners cannot claim their own horse (amended 03/20)
(1) A person shall not claim directly or indirectly his or her own horse or a horse trained or
driven by him/her or cause such horse to be claimed directly or indirectly for his or her
own account.
(2) A person shall not directly or indirectly offer, or directly or indirectly enter into an
agreement, to claim or not to claim or directly or indirectly attempt to prevent another
person from claiming any horse in a claiming race.
313 g Limitation of claims (amended 04/22)
(1) No owner is entitled to make more than one claim in any one race.
(2) All claim forms must designate a licensed trainer.
(3) No licensed trainer or authorized agent may be involved with the claiming of more than 2
horses in any one claiming race.
(4) A trainer shall not have more than one claim on any one horse in any claiming race. In the
event of multiple claims for the same designated trainer, the qualifying claim from within
that group shall be drawn by lot for the claim. All claim forms must identify a designated
trainer.
(5) Should different individuals or entities involved in a partnership submit a claim in the
same race, the qualifying claim will be drawn by the judges/stewards board, or their
designate, form within that partnership group, before any final draw for the claim of a
Chapter 3: General Horse Racing Rules | Part 4 Claiming Rules
- 90 -
horse.
314 g No claims by trainers
No *claim may be made of a *horse that has the same *trainer as the claimant.
315 g Claiming prohibitions (amended 04/25)
(1) No person may offer to, nor enter into an agreement to, *claim or not to claim a *horse, or
attempt to prevent a claim being made, nor may any person, by intimidation, prevent a
horse from being run in a *claiming race.
(2) The *judges/stewards board may prohibit persons from *claiming if it considers that the
purpose of making the claim would
(a) not advance the interests of the Alberta horse racing industry,
(b) not be in the best interests of racing in Alberta, or
(c) be contrary to the purpose of claiming races or the public interest.
(3) All Thoroughbred and Quarter Horses claimed must *race within 45 days of the claim.
If unable to race within 45 days, the owner and/or trainer must provide a veterinary
certificate explaining why the horse is medically unable to race. This certificate must be
accepted by the Official Veterinarian.
(a) If the owner and/or trainer fails to provide an acceptable veterinary certificate, they
may lose their claiming privileges for 365 days (one year).
WHO MAY CLAIM
316 g Issue of claim certificates
(1) On application, a *claim certificate may be issued by the *judges/stewards board to any
person whose *owner’s licence has been approved, subject to such terms, conditions, or
limitations as the board considers advisable.
(2) A claim certificate is valid only for the *racing season in respect of which it is issued.
317 g Claimants (amended 03/20)
(1) The following persons may make a claim for a race horse in a claiming race:
(a) a licensed owner who has a race horse on the grounds registered to race at the race
meeting in which the claim is to be made;
(b) a licensed owner who does not actually own a race horse but whose licence
application has been approved by the judges/stewards board;
(c) any other person whose application for an owner's licence has been approved, and
who is the holder of a claim certificate issued by the judge/stewards board.
(2) Licensed owners may claim for themselves alone or in partnership.
(3) Any person or the authorized agent of such person who holds a current valid HORSE
RACING ALBERTA licence may claim any horse, or any person who has properly applied for
and been granted a claiming certificate shall be permitted to claim any horse. Any person
or authorized agent eligible to claim a horse shall be allowed access to the grounds of the
Association in order to affect a claim at the designated place of making claims and to take
possession of the horse claimed.
Chapter 3: General Horse Racing Rules | Part 4 Claiming Rules
- 91 -
318 g Two or more owners claiming
If 2 or more *licensed owners *claim a *horse, all must sign the claim, unless one of them, or
another person designated by them, is constituted as authorized agent for all the *owners.
319 g Claim must be on deposit
(1) No person may make a *claim unless the amount of the claim is placed on deposit with
the horsemen's bookkeeper by the claimant.
(2) A *claiming credit note must be obtained from the horsemen's bookkeeper covering the
current balance in the claimant's account.
320 g Limited discussion about claiming
(1) *Licensed owners and authorized agents must not discuss with any person, other than
their *trainer, any matter relating to the *claiming of a particular *horse.
(2) Trainers must not discuss a proposed *claim with any person other than the licensed
owner making the claim or the *owner’s authorized agent.
Chapter 3: General Horse Racing Rules | Part 4 Claiming Rules
- 92 -
HOW THE CLAIM IS MADE
321 g When claim can be made
A *claim may only be made
(a) in respect of a *claiming race, and
(b) for any *horse in that *race for its entered *claiming price.
322 g Making the claim (amended 03/20)
(1) Claims must be made in writing on the proper claim blank supplied by the licensed
operator.
(2) When a claim has been lodged it is irrevocable, and is at the risk of the claimant.
323 g Opening claims
*Claims may only be opened by the *judges/stewards board or other specified *racing official
designated by the board.
324 g Two or more claims for the same horse (amended 03/20)
In the event more than one claim is submitted for the same horse, the successful claimant
shall be determined by lot by the judges/stewards, and all unsuccessful claims involved in the
decision by lot shall, at that time, become null and void, notwithstanding any future disposition
of such claim.
Upon determining that a claim is valid, the judges/stewards shall forthwith notify the paddock
judge of the name of the horse claimed, the name of the claimant and the name of the person
to whom the horse is to be delivered.
If two or more claimants enter a claim for the same horse, the disposition of the horse is to be
determined by the judges/steward’s board, or other racing official designated by them, by lot.
CLAIMS AT THOROUGHBRED RACES
325 t Claims and claims box (amended 05/24)
(1) For thoroughbred *races,
(a) the *claim blank and the *claiming credit note, properly completed, and claim
certificate, if applicable, must be placed in the claim envelope provided by the
*licensed operator for that purpose, and
(b) the envelope must be sealed and must have the date and number of the race
written on it, and the envelope must be deposited in the claim box before the last
*horse has left the paddock for the race.
(2) The claim box must be located in the paddock area under the supervision of the paddock
*judge.
(3) The paddock judge must cause all claims to be reported to the *stewards board before
the running of each race.
Chapter 3: General Horse Racing Rules | Part 4 Claiming Rules
- 93 -
STANDARDBRED CLAIMS
326 s Making the claim (amended 05/24)
(1) A *claim blank and the *claiming credit note, properly completed, and a claim certificate,
if applicable, must be placed in the claim envelope provided by the *licensed operator for
that purpose.
(2) The envelope must be sealed, the date and number of the *race written on it, and the
envelope must be delivered to the horsemen's bookkeeper or another person designated
for that purpose by the licensed operator at least 30 minutes before *post time of the race
in respect of which the claim is being made.
(3) The horseman’s bookkeeper or designate must certify, by automatic time clock on the
outside of the envelope, the time the envelope is received.
327 s Delivery of claims
The horsemen's bookkeeper must cause all *claims to be delivered to the *judges board before
the running of each *race.
328 s Eligibility for claiming standardbred horses
(1) No *declaration is to be accepted on a *horse for a *claiming race unless
(a) the *owner has provided written authorization to the racing secretary before
declaration which must include the minimum price for which the horse may be
*claimed, and
(b) if the horse is owned by more than one party, all parties or their authorized agent
must sign the authorization.
(2) Any question relating to the validity of a *claiming authorization must be referred to the
*judges board who may disallow a declaration, or *scratch the horse, if they consider the
authorization to be improper.
(3) To be eligible for a claim, a standardbred horse must start in the event to which it was
declared.
329 s Scratches from claiming races
If a standardbred *horse is declared to start in a *claiming race but is *scratched
(a) the scratch must be noted on its *eligibility certificate, and
(b) if a *declaration is made within a period of 30 *days before its next start, that horse is
subject to *claim in its next start, regardless of the type or conditions of the *race or
ownership, at a total price no greater than the amount for which it could have been
claimed in the race from which it was scratched.
330 s Trainers and drivers may not claim
No person may *claim a standardbred *horse trained or driven by that person in a *claiming
race.
Chapter 3: General Horse Racing Rules | Part 4 Claiming Rules
- 94 -
AFTER THE CLAIM IS MADE
331 g Vesting of title (amended 03/20)
Every horse entered in a claiming race shall race for the account of the owner who declared it
in the event but title to a claimed horse shall be vested in the successful claimant from the time
the horse is deemed to have started, and the successful claimant shall become the owner of the
horse.
332 g Delivery order for claimed horses (amended 03/20)
Transfer of possession of a claimed horse to the successful claimant or their representative shall
take place in the paddock immediately after the running of the race. Altering or removing the
horse's shoes prior to the transfer is not permitted.
333 g Transfer of registration (amended 03/20)
Notwithstanding the requirements under Rule 332 g, in the case where a claimed horse must
submit for post-race testing, physical custody of the claimed horse shall transfer from the
original owner to the successful claimant outside the retention area following completion of the
test and after the sample tags have been signed by the original owner or their representative.
334 g Scratch from races by new owner
The new *licensed owner or *trainer of a *claimed *horse may *scratch the horse out of any
*race in which it had been entered by its former *owner.
335 g Claims can be voided (amended 03/20)
(1) The *judges/stewards board may declare a *claim to be void if
(a) any provision of these rules relating to *claiming is *violated,
(b) the judges/stewards board is satisfied that the spirit and intent of the rules have
been violated, or
(c) if the Official Chemist reports a positive test on a horse that was claimed, provided
such option is exercised within 48 hours following notification to the claimant of the
positive test by the judges/stewards,
(d) if the horse has been found ineligible to the event from which it was claimed, or
(e) if approved post-race testing procedures disclosed that an improper medication or
drug was found to be present in the sample of the claimed horses and reported in
the analysis report from the laboratory, provided such option is exercised within 48
hours following notification to the claimant by the judges/stewards.
(1.1) A claim may be voided if a horse is a starter as determined by the judges/stewards board,
and the horse:
(a) Dies on the racing oval; or
(b) Suffers an injury which requires the euthanasia of the horse as determined by the
Official Veterinarian while the horse is on the racing oval.
Chapter 3: General Horse Racing Rules | Part 4 Claiming Rules
- 95 -
(2) If erythropoietin or darbepoetin is confirmed in a blood sample taken from a claimed
horse, the claimant of that horse may request the judges/stewards to declare the claim
invalid, but the request must be made within 48 hours of the claimant, his or her trainer, or
authorized agent receiving notification of the positive test from the judges/stewards.
(3) When the judges/stewards board rules a claim to be void and the *horse is returned to the
original *owner:
(a) the amount of the claiming price plus GST shall be repaid to the claimant;
(b) any purse money earned subsequent to the date of the claim and before the date
on which the claim is ruled void becomes the property of the claimant, and
(c) the claimant is responsible for any reasonable costs incurred through the care,
training, or racing of the horse while it was in their care, custody or control.
336 g Limitations on sale and racing of claimed horses (amended 04/22)
(1) A claimed horse in thoroughbred racing must not
(a) be sold or transferred to anyone, in whole or in part, except in a claiming race, for at
least 60 days after the date of a claim, unless the stewards board permits a transfer to
another trainer;
(b) return to the same stable or to control or management of its former licensed owner
or trainer for at least 60 days after the date of the claim, unless the horse is reclaimed;
(c) be raced outside of the Alberta circuit from which it was claimed from for the
balance of that Alberta circuits *racing season without the permission of the
stewards board.
(2) A claimed horse in Standardbred racing must not
(a) a claimed horse shall not be eligible to start in any race in the name or interest of
the original owner for 30 days, unless reclaimed out of another claiming race. Nor
shall such horse remain in or be returned to the same stable or care or management
of the first owner or trainer for the same period of 30 days, unless reclaimed out of
another claiming race;
(b) return to the same stable or to control or management of its former licensed owner
or trainer for at least 60 days after the date of the claim, unless the horse is reclaimed;
(c) a claimed horse, regardless of ownership, shall only race at a track or tracks in that
province for the next 60 days, except where such horse has been nominated to
participate in an added money event before it was claimed, or unless the track
where the horse was claimed closes for more than 30 days. In the case of their track
closing for more than 30 days, or unless mandated by the provincial regulator the
horse is released from the provisions of this rule the day after the track closes. Any
person who violates this rule shall be subject to a suspension or monetary penalty
or unless mandated by the provincial regulator of the 10% of the claiming price
or 100% of the purse for each race, whichever is greater and the horse may be
suspended. A claimant shall be held in violation of this rule if he or she disposes of
the horse in any manner other than by claiming and the horse races outside of the
province within 60 days of the horse being claimed.
Chapter 3: General Horse Racing Rules | Part 4 Claiming Rules
- 96 -
337 t Thoroughbred claiming limitations
(1) A *horse *claimed from a *race it has won may not start in a *claiming race for a period of 14
*days from the day of the claim for less than 25% more than the amount for which it was claimed.
(2) Horses, other than the winner, if claimed, may not start in a claiming race for a price less
than the price for which they were claimed for 14 days from the date of the claim.
(3) This section applies only to the *racing season during which the claim was made.
338 s Standardbred restriction
Spayed mares are not to receive any sex allowance.
339 g Claiming rules in other jurisdictions recognized in Alberta
When a *race horse is *claimed at a recognized *meeting in a jurisdiction outside Alberta under
rules which differ from these rules, title to and *entry restrictions on the claimed *horse must be
recognized in Alberta in accordance with the rules in the jurisdiction in which the claim occured.

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

Jockey Cap Owners Colours not allowed in Alberta at the present time > Why not ? The current generic Jockey caps have the appearance of cheap / tacky look to them. Almost every other racing jurisdiction across North America as well throughout Europe it is the norm.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
None

Who does the issue affect?
Racehorse Owners. They are ones paying the bills /expenses etc !

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
Not sure ?

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
The Owners Complete Set of racing colours.

How will the solution fix the problem?
HRA to make the change !

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
Brings the Alberta horseracing industry inline with all other major racing jurisdiction's.

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Brings a finishing touch of Professionalism to the industry.

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
There are none, absolutely no negative effects

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.
How could anyone be opposed, to such an easy, simple rule change ?

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
I did speak to Jason Teague in July 2025 regarding this matter.

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

Thoroughbred Racehorse Owners should be allowed to use their full racing colours that includes the Jockey Cap, if they so choose. Or this proposed rule change could read as follows 'All Jockey Caps carry the Owners complete racing colours' HRA could give a time period ( i.e 2 or 3 years ) for the complete change over.

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

Owners racing colours on Jockey Caps are allowed at Woodbine and at major racetracks across North America

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

None that I know of

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

When a race card is cancelled due to weather or track conditions, horses and trainers impacted by the cancellation are provided preference for the a replacement card that needs to be redrawn (> 48 hours) after the cancelled card. However, some horses impacted by the cancelled card will fall out of preference.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
The TB rules currently allow for special preference when there is a cancellation. This protects all horses impacted by a cancelled race day.

Who does the issue affect?
The issue affects trainers / owners of horses who lose an opportunity to race due to a cancellation.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
The SB rule regarding preference does not address preference rules when a race card is cancelled. 408 s Preference priority rules Preference is governed by the following: (a) if more than the required number of *horses are declared in to a *race with the same preference date, the previous preference dates apply; (b) (c) when a horse is racing for the first time at the gait declared for it, it has preference for its first start over other horses, regardless of their preference dates; when a horse is entered for its second lifetime start it has preference over horses that have started twice or more and have an equal preference date to single starter

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
The proposal addresses a current gap in the SB rules and specifies special preference for horses impacted by a cancellation.

How will the solution fix the problem?
Currently there is no preference rule addressing race card cancellations.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
The change will positively impact trainers and owners negatively impacted by a cancellation.

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
The change insures all owners and trainers are not overly penalized by a race day cancellation.

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
There are no know drawbacks.

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.
HRA regulatory and Century have agreed that adding special preference for SBs clarifies the process for cancellations and protects owners and trainers impacted negatively. It also aligns with current TB rules.

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
No.

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

480 s Special preferences (1) (2) If a racing program or any portion of a program is cancelled or a *race is declared no contest, the *horses affected by that cancellation or *declaration must receive a special preference. The special preference is good in all categories except *stakes races and is to be considered “best preference”.

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

Yes. This also aligns with the HRA TB rules.

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

No other rules should be impacted.

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

The current rule governing cancellations due to questionable track or weather conditions does not provide a fair, transparent, or representative decision-making process for all trainers and drivers who are directly affected by the conditions and decision to race or not race. The existing rule relies on a small group of representatives and requires a unanimous agreement to race or not race.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
The current rule presents several operational and safety challenges: • Lack of broad representation: Decisions hinge on the opinion of a few elected representatives rather than the full group of trainers and drivers actually racing that day.
• Potential for peer pressure or dominance by loud voices: Because decisions are made in open discussion and not by confidential vote, some individuals may feel pressured to agree with others, even if they believe conditions are unsafe.
• Unanimity requirement is impractical and unsafe: Requiring unanimous agreement that the track is safe sets an unreasonably high threshold and does not align with contemporary safety practices.
• Financial penalties are imposed for safety-based scratches: When unanimity is not achieved, trainers must deposit 10% of the purse to scratch a horse—even when the decision to scratch is welfare-based. This discourages responsible decision-making.
• No integrated path for drivers to withdraw services: Drivers cannot independently protect themselves from unsafe conditions without facing repercussions or being viewed as obstructing the card.

Who does the issue affect?
Trainers and Owners:
Benefit from a fair process where they can scratch horses without financial penalty when conditions are questionable.
Gain confidence that decisions are made equitably and with a focus on horse welfare.

Drivers:
Receive a formal mechanism to withdraw services safely without risking penalty or backlash.
Enjoy greater protection under conditions where visibility, footing, or surface integrity pose risks.

Judges:
Benefit from a clearer, more structured framework for evaluating conditions and making decisions.
Reduce exposure to disputes regarding fairness or transparency.

Racetrack Management:
Maintain authority to cancel racing while also participating in the assessment process.
Reduce the risk of public criticism or participant dissatisfaction following cancellations or unsafe starts.

HRA:
Benefits from improved regulatory clarity, alignment with safety principles, and reduced disputes regarding cancellation decisions.

Betting public:
Gains confidence that races proceed only when safe, reducing the occurrence of last-minute cancellations or shortened fields due to penalized scratches.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
418 s Questionable track conditions
If track conditions are questionable, the *judges board must meet with a representative of the association and the duly elected representatives of the *horsemen to consider the matter and the following applies: (a) (b) (c) (d) if the *meeting results in an unanimous decision that track conditions are safe for racing, no withdrawals are allowed; if the meeting results in a decision other than an unanimous decision that track conditions are safe for racing, an *owner or *trainer may *scratch a *horse after depositing an amount equal to 10% of the total purse to be raced for with *Horse Racing Alberta; the money deposited is to be retained by Horse Racing Alberta, or returned to the owner or trainer, at the direction of the judges board; if the number of withdrawals reduces the field to less than 5, the *licensed operator may postpone a *stake or cancel an overnight event.
Policy and procedures for race day cancellations is also applicable.

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
The proposal introduces a fair, structured, confidential voting process where all trainers and drivers scheduled to participate on that program have an equal voice. Key elements of the solution include:
A secret ballot conducted by the representative of drivers and trainers, reducing peer pressure and ensuring honest input.
Clear thresholds for decision-making (50%, 75%) that establish meaningful criteria for racing, cancelling, or offering penalty-free scratches.
Separate safeguards for drivers, allowing them to withdraw their services without penalty if more than 50% vote against racing.
Consistent involvement of the Judges and racetrack management in the assessment of conditions.
Retention of racetrack management’s authority to cancel independently when necessary.

How will the solution fix the problem?
The proposed change addresses every deficiency in the current rule by:
Creating an inclusive process where every affected trainer and driver can express their position confidentially.
Removing the unrealistic unanimity requirement and replacing it with practical, safety-focused thresholds.
Eliminating punitive financial penalties for withdrawing horses when conditions are uncertain.
Reducing opportunities for coercion, pressure, or dominance by a small subset of individuals.
Supporting driver safety, recognizing that drivers face distinct risks when track conditions are uncertain.
Providing clear, predictable governance for judges and racetrack operators, reducing conflict and ambiguity.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
Trainers and Owners:
Benefit from a fair process where they can scratch horses without financial penalty when conditions are questionable.
Gain confidence that decisions are made equitably and with a focus on horse welfare.

Drivers:
Receive a formal mechanism to withdraw services safely without risking penalty or backlash.
Enjoy greater protection under conditions where visibility, footing, or surface integrity pose risks.

Judges:
Benefit from a clearer, more structured framework for evaluating conditions and making decisions.
Reduce exposure to disputes regarding fairness or transparency.

Racetrack Management:
Maintain authority to cancel racing while also participating in the assessment process.
Reduce the risk of public criticism or participant dissatisfaction following cancellations or unsafe starts.

HRA:
Benefits from improved regulatory clarity, alignment with safety principles, and reduced disputes regarding cancellation decisions.

Betting public:
Gains confidence that races proceed only when safe, reducing the occurrence of last-minute cancellations or shortened fields due to penalized scratches.

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
• Stronger and more equitable safety process
By allowing all affected horsepeople to vote confidentially, the rule enhances fairness and protects welfare.
• Eliminates unnecessary punitive financial deposits
Trainers can act in the best interest of their horses without the fear of financial penalties.
• Reduces conflict and improves transparency
Clear thresholds and a secret ballot eliminate ambiguity and limit disputes.
• Supports better decision-making by judges and management
A structured process produces more reliable, representative information.
• Improves horse and driver welfare
Risk is mitigated through meaningful participant input and the removal of pressure to race under unsafe conditions.
• Strengthens industry trust
Participants feel heard and respected, promoting a safer, more collaborative racing environment.

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
While the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, potential considerations include:
• Slightly longer decision-making process
A secret ballot may take a few extra minutes compared to an informal discussion, though still quick enough for operational needs.
• Increased responsibility on representatives and judges
Proper administration of the ballot requires organization, but this is manageable and consistent with their oversight duties.

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.
HRA regulatory was supportive.

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
Century was consulted but did not comment.

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

NEW Wording
If the track or weather conditions are questionable for the warming up or racing of horses, including actual temperature, the Judges shall convene a meeting with the representative of the drivers and trainers and a representative of racetrack management. If required by the Judges, the representative of the drivers and trainers shall conduct a secret ballot of the drivers and trainers of horses participating in that program of racing to determine whether racing should be conducted. If the vote of the drivers and trainers determines that more than 50% vote against racing, the card shall be cancelled. If more than 50% and less than 75% vote to race, trainers will be allowed to withdraw horses without penalty. If more than 75% vote to race, the regular rules of withdrawal and scratching of horses will apply. If the drivers vote alone is more than 50% to cancel they should be allowed to withdraw their services without penalty. The foregoing does not prevent racetrack management from canceling the races due to track or weather conditions without consultation with the Judges and the horsepeople’s representative.

OLD Wording
418 s Questionable track conditions If track conditions are questionable, the *judges board must meet with a representative of the association and the duly elected representatives of the *horsemen to consider the matter and the following applies: (a) (b) (c) (d) if the *meeting results in an unanimous decision that track conditions are safe for racing, no withdrawals are allowed; if the meeting results in a decision other than an unanimous decision that track conditions are safe for racing, an *owner or *trainer may *scratch a *horse after depositing an amount equal to 10% of the total purse to be raced for with *Horse Racing Alberta; the money deposited is to be retained by Horse Racing Alberta, or returned to the owner or trainer, at the direction of the judges board; if the number of withdrawals reduces the field to less than 5, the *licensed operator may postpone a *stake or cancel an overnight event.

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

Yes AGGO
21.01 In case of unfavorable weather or other unavoidable cause, Associations with the consent of the Judges shall postpone or cancel races in accordance with this Chapter.

21.01.01 If the track or weather conditions are questionable for the warming up or racing of horses, including actual temperature, the Judges shall convene a meeting with the representative of the drivers and trainers and a representative of racetrack management. If required by the Judges, the representative of the drivers and trainers shall conduct a secret ballot of the drivers and trainers of horses participating in that program of racing to determine whether racing should be conducted. If the vote of the drivers and trainers determines that more than 50% vote against racing, the card shall be cancelled. If more than 50% and less than 75% vote to race, trainers will be allowed to withdraw horses without penalty. If more than 75% vote to race, the regular rules of withdrawal and scratching of horses will apply. If the drivers vote alone is more than 50% to cancel they should be allowed to withdraw their services without penalty. The foregoing does not prevent racetrack management from canceling the races due to track or weather conditions without consultation with the Judges and the horsepeople’s representative.
In the event of a forecasted extreme temperature, the Extreme Temperature Standards at shall be applied.

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

https://thehorses.com/regulatory/policies-and-procedures/136-race-day-cancellation-policy
The same language should be added to the race day cancellation policy

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

Rule addition re: financial issues involving owner/trainers

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
Disagreement between parties.

Who does the issue affect?
As above

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
None Add propose wording to 142g

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
Spells out financial info between owner/trainer

How will the solution fix the problem?
As above

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
As above

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
As above

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
None

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.
N/A

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
N/A

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

(1) Ensure that good communications are well established with your owners and that you provide sufficient and accurate data on a regular and timely basis.

(2) You should/must declare IN WRITING to your owner, in writing, the services for which the owner is to be directly financially responsible and your rate schedule, including day rate and commissions on purses earned by the horses. You and each of your owners should/must agree on the financial arrangements between yourselves, including terms of payment (owner/trainer contract)

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

ON

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

N/A

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

Detention/Retention

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
Specifies requirements for horse owners/trainers

Who does the issue affect?
Detention/Retention and OOCT

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
269g

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
Makes rule more specific.

How will the solution fix the problem?
As Above

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
As Above

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
As Above

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
None

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.
N/A

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
N/A

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

(1) Horse Racing Alberta may order that biological samples, including but not limited to blood, hair, saliva and urine, be taken from a horse at any time or place and without prior notice ADD: for and/or all horses entered to race in the Province of Alberta and may be subject to an HRA determined timeframe for detention before and/or after the horse races at the discretion of the Director of Regulatory & Supervisor of Racing.

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

No, only for OOCT.

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

N/A

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

The rules governing racing need to match the track licensing rules

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
The rule 112 g in the rulebook is outdated.

Who does the issue affect?
It affects all tracks and licensees in Alberta

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
112 g

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
First aid and ambulance facilities will be up to date

How will the solution fix the problem?

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Ensure clarity and alignment between the rules governing racing and the racetrack licensing requirements.

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.
All stakeholder groups have had input into the racetrack licensing rules

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

A track licensing rules:
Human Ambulance:
(a) A race track shall provide a properly staffed and equipped Advanced Life Support ambulance in accordance with the Alberta Occupational
Health and Safety Act with an advanced care paramedic(s) during training (thoroughbred racing) and racing hours (all racing). If the
ambulance is being used to transport an individual from the racing surface or attending to a patient, the Racetrack may not conduct a race,
or allow horses on the racetrack, until the ambulance is replaced or available for service.
(b) Race tracks shall ensure the Advanced Life Support ambulance staff have been trained in concussion management. Any Jockey/driver who
falls or is thrown from a horse during a race must be examined by the Advanced Life Support staff. Advanced Life Support staff shall report
their findings to the board of stewards/judges, who will determine if the driver/jockey may continue riding.
(c) Unless otherwise approved by the *Corporation or the stewards, an ambulance shall follow the field at a safe distance during the running of
races.

Equine Ambulance:
(a) An association shall provide an equine ambulance staffed by trained personnel on association grounds on each day that the racetrack is open
for racing or training.
(b) The ambulance must be properly ventilated and kept at an entrance to the racing strip when not in use.
(c) The ambulance must be a covered vehicle that is low to the ground and large enough to accommodate a horse in distress. The ambulance must
be able to navigate on the racetrack during all weather conditions and transport a horse off the association grounds.
(d) The ambulance must be equipped with large, portable screens to shield a horse from public view, ramps to facilitate loading a horse, adequate
means of loading a horse that is down, a rear door and a door on each side, a padded interior, a movable partition to initially provide more
room to load a horse and to later restrict a horse’s movement, a shielded area for the person who is attending to the horse, and an adequate area
for the storage of water and veterinary drugs and equipment.
(e) An association may not conduct a race unless an equine ambulance or an official veterinarian-approved substitute is readily available.
(f) The equine ambulance, its supplies and attendants and the operating procedures for the equine ambulance must be approved by the official
veterinarian.


B track licensing rules

Human Ambulance:
(a) A racetrack shall provide a properly staffed and equipped Advanced Life Support ambulance and advanced care paramedic(s) in accordance
with the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Act during racing hours (all racing). If the ambulance is being used to transport an
individual from the racing surface or attending to a patient, the racetrack may not conduct a race, or allow horses on the racetrack until
the ambulance is replaced or available for service.
(b) Race tracks shall ensure the Advanced Life Support ambulance staff have been trained in concussion management. Any Jockey/driver who
falls or is thrown from a horse during a race must be examined by the Advanced Life Support staff. Advanced Life Support staff shall report
their findings to the board of stewards/judges, who will determine if the driver/jockey may continue riding.
(c) Unless otherwise approved by the *Corporation or the stewards, an ambulance shall follow the field at a safe distance during the running of
races.
(d) The ambulance must be parked at an entrance to the racing strip except when the ambulance is being used to transport an individual or when it
is following the field during the running of a race.

Equine Ambulance:
(a) An association shall provide an equine ambulance staffed by trained personnel on association grounds on each day that the racetrack is open
for racing or training.
(b) The ambulance must be properly ventilated and kept at an entrance to the racing strip when not in use.
(c) The ambulance must be a covered vehicle that is low to the ground and large enough to accommodate a horse in distress. The ambulance must
be able to navigate on the racetrack during all weather conditions and transport a horse off the association grounds.
(d) The ambulance must be equipped with large, portable screens to shield a horse from public view, ramps to facilitate loading a horse, adequate
means of loading a horse that is down, a rear door and a door on each side, a padded interior, a movable partition to initially provide more
room to load a horse and to later restrict a horse’s movement, a shielded area for the person who is attending to the horse, and an adequate area
for the storage of water and veterinary drugs and equipment.
(e) An association may not conduct a race unless an equine ambulance or an official veterinarian-approved substitute is readily available.
(f) The equine ambulance, its supplies and attendants and the operating procedures for the equine ambulance must be approved by the official
veterinarian.

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

112 g First aid and ambulance facilities (amended 04/22)
(1) A *licensed operator shall provide and equip a first aid room and have present on their premises, or within easy call, a licensed physician, registered nurse, or qualified attendant and shall have present during morning workouts, qualifying races and during the regular racing program an ambulance or mobile first aid vehicle, equipped and operated by the St John Ambulance or equivalent, for participants and patrons.
(2) A *licensed operator shall have during morning workouts, qualifying races and during the regular racing program, a qualified person who has completed the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 5th Edition (SCAT5) training for concussion assessment.
(3) A *licensed operator shall have a horse ambulance available in the stable area on race days for the removal of injured animals.
(4) Provide a horse ambulance available to remove horses from the track.

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

The HBPA believes the current rule in place does not work for our jurisdiction. The penalty matrix and interpretation of the current rule has placed undue hardship on the riding colony at Century racetracks. Concerns in regards to the wagering publics perception of a rider that cannot get the best finish out of their mount due to limits on strikes and how they are being interpreted.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
-Excessive fining of riders in an already depleted riding colony will affect the amount of returning riders to our
racetracks
-concerns from the betting public in relation to getting the best possible finish out of a horse while still
acknowledging the public's perceptive of the riding crop use.
-The Penalty Matrix in relation to the fines is too much of a burden to the riders and is not proportionate to the
STB penalty Matrix for the same offenses.

Who does the issue affect?
The Horse Racing industry

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
210 t (3) (d)

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
Implement a blend of the current rule set being observed at Woodbine racetrack as well as Assiniboia Downs

How will the solution fix the problem?
It will give a better perception to the public and provide the jockeys with more options to preserve with mounts in a safe and ethical manner.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
It will improve the product and promote Horse Racing in Alberta by showing efforts in getting up to speed with current standards while also observing and taking into account the feedback of the Jockeys Guild, Racetrack operators and the HBPA in regards to what works in our jurisdiction
-Excessive fining of riders in an already depleted riding colony will affect the amount of returning riders to our
racetracks
-concerns from the betting public in relation to getting the best possible finish out of a horse while still
acknowledging the public's perceptive of the riding crop use.
-The Penalty Matrix in relation to the fines is too much of a burden to the riders and is not proportionate to the
STB penalty Matrix for the same offenses.
The HBPA believes the current rule in place does not work for our jurisdiction. The penalty matrix and
interpretation of the current rule has placed undue hardship on the riding colony at Century racetracks.
Concerns in regards to the wagering publics perception of a rider that cannot get the best finish out of their
mount due to limits on strikes and how they are being interpreted

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
It will improve the safety and welfare of the horses and jockeys and provide riders with the more options to safely perservere with their mounts in an ethical manner.

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
none

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.
Century Racetracks (Neutral)
HBPA: In support
Jockey's Guild: In Support
AQHRA: in support

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

Jockeys may use the crop on the hindquarters to activate and focus the Horse a maximum of 10 times
overhanded during a race. The 10 permitted uses shall be in increments of two or fewer strikes. The rider must
allow at least two strides for the Horse to respond before using the crop again. No underhand strikes applied
to the shoulder or hind quarters shall be counted against this total during the race.

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

combination of Woodbine and Assiniboia Downs

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

Trying to regulate and change the current policy when a rider has a false positive.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
We believe that it is unfair to pay a rider the minimum mount fee after he/she has been removed from there mounts
when the split sample comes back negative, even when they do a second test at the track and it comes back negative they are still removed from there mounts. The repercussions from this false positive is far more than a losing mount fee. Owners and trainers alike look and treat them differently.

Who does the issue affect?
The jockey colony ,owners, trainers, breeders, racing fans, bettors

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
rule 300

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
The solution and recommendation is to obtain a more accurate machine or way of testing. We have been told by numerous people who administer these kinds of test with the krieger machine all say once it is moved from place to place it then needs recalibrating

How will the solution fix the problem?
It would stop riders from unjust penalties, it provides all stake holders (trainers, owners, fans, bettors) the opportunity to have their preferred jockey

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
It will make the racing experience more positive for all concerned

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
It will make the integrity of our industry better

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
none

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.
Jockeys, trainers

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
Breeders

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

Rule number 300 Prohibited blood/alcohol concentrations
When the split sample comes back negative there should be better compensation. Afterall it did come back negative

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

Not that I am aware of

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

None

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

Unprofessional and improper conduct among horsemen at Alberta racetracks has reached unacceptable levels. The current rulebook lacks the necessary provisions for the regulatory body to take swift and decisive action.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
The regulatory body must be empowered to take immediate and decisive action, including disciplinary measures or removal from the premises, in response to conduct that disrupts the peace, displays obnoxious or unprofessional behavior, or involves verbal abuse, physical or sexual misconduct, or discrimination.

Who does the issue affect?
All licensees, racetracks, and associations in Alberta

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
286g

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
The proposal empowers the regulatory body to take immediate and decisive action in response to unprofessional or abusive conduct.
This solution fills a critical gap in the current rulebook, which lacks provisions for swift intervention. By enabling regulators to act immediately, the proposal:
• Prevents further disruption or harm
• Protects the safety and integrity of the racing environment
• Sends a strong message that misconduct will not be tolerated
• Supports a respectful and professional culture across the industry
It aligns Alberta with best practices in other jurisdictions such as HISA (U.S.), New Mexico, and ARCI, where provisional suspensions and summary disciplinary actions are already in place to safeguard the sport.

How will the solution fix the problem?
The implementation of clear and immediate sanctions against horsemen for misconduct will send a strong message that such behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
Currently, horsemen who engage in misconduct are allowed to continue participating in daily activities and racing until their hearing with the judges or stewards—often delayed by several days. This lack of immediate consequences not only undermines the seriousness of disciplinary action but also creates a disruptive and unsafe environment for other participants, regulatory staff, and others.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
Empowering the regulatory body to take immediate disciplinary action will have a significant and positive impact across all stakeholder groups:
• Horsemen: Clear and immediate consequences for misconduct will promote accountability and professionalism. It will deter inappropriate behavior and foster a safer, more respectful environment for all participants.
• Racetrack Operators: Enhanced authority for regulators will help maintain order and protect the integrity of racing events, reducing disruptions and potential liabilities.
• Regulatory Staff: Immediate enforcement capabilities will support staff in maintaining a safe and respectful working environment, improving morale and operational efficiency.
• Associations and other Stakeholders: A stronger disciplinary framework will reinforce the credibility of the sport and demonstrate a commitment to upholding high standards of conduct.
• Spectators and the Public: A well-regulated and respectful racing environment enhances the public perception of the sport, encouraging attendance and community support.

How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Implementing immediate and decisive disciplinary measures for misconduct will yield lasting positive outcomes across the Alberta horse racing industry:
• Horsemen: A culture of accountability and professionalism will be reinforced, leading to improved behavior, stronger peer respect, and a safer working environment. Over time, this will elevate the reputation of horsemen and enhance career sustainability.
• Racetrack Operators: Consistent enforcement of conduct standards will reduce incidents that disrupt operations or pose liability risks. This stability will improve the overall management of events and attract higher-quality participants and sponsors.
• Regulatory Staff: Empowering officials to act swiftly will reduce workplace stress and conflict, leading to better job satisfaction, retention, and operational efficiency. It also strengthens the authority and credibility of the regulatory body.
• Associations and Stakeholders: A robust disciplinary framework will demonstrate a commitment to integrity and safety, enhancing trust and stakeholder confidence in the sport’s governance.
• Spectators and the Public: A respectful and well-managed racing environment will improve the spectator experience, boost public perception, and encourage greater community engagement and attendance, contributing to the sport’s growth and sustainability.
• Future Hires and Industry Entrants: A clearly enforced code of conduct will attract individuals who value professionalism and safety. It will help establish a positive reputation for the industry, making it more appealing to skilled newcomers and reducing turnover caused by toxic or unsafe environments.

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?

D. Please identify any affected stakeholder groups that expressed support or opposition.

(These stakeholders may include the racetracks, breed registries, owners, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, or others.)

For those stakeholder groups that have expressed an opinion, please list the points on which they agree or disagree, and the arguments they have expressed.

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
The following have sent support:
ACTRA is also in support of this petition - President Lynette Braun
HBPA supports this petition - Executive Director Mike Vanin
ASHA supports this petition - Executive Director Nancy Retzlaf
CTHS is also in support of this - Manager Dawson Guhle

Please attach any formal letters of support or opposition by stakeholder groups. Files must be .pdf, .doc, .docx, or .txt format and under 3072k for the system to accept the submission. You can add a maximum of 3 attachments.

E. Attach the rule language you are proposing. Please show new language in a new paragraph below the current wording. If you are proposing that current rule language be eliminated, please indicate the text to be deleted with [delete: sample deleted copy]

E. Rule Language:
Proposed Rule Language: Immediate Disciplinary Authority for Misconduct
Rule Number:
All licensees shall conduct themselves in a professional, respectful, and orderly manner while on the grounds of any licensed racetrack or during any racing-related activity under the jurisdiction of Horse Racing Alberta.
(1) Any licensee found to be engaging in past or present conduct deemed disruptive, unprofessional, or abusive including but not limited to:
• Verbal abuse, physical or sexual misconduct, or discrimination
• Behavior that disturbs the peace or safety of others
• Use profane, obscene, or threatening language;
• Engage in harassment, intimidation, or abusive behaviour;
• Interfere with the duties of racing officials or security investigators
• Engage in conduct detrimental to the integrity, reputation, or orderly conduct of racing;
may be subject to immediate disciplinary action by Horse Racing Alberta.
(2) Upon reasonable grounds, the Director of Regulatory and Supervisor of Racing, Judges, Stewards, or authorized Security Investigators may:
• Issue a temporary suspension of the licensee’s privileges.
• Remove the licensee from the racetrack premises.
• Restrict access to racing-related activities pending a formal hearing.
• Impost conditions on the license, such as mandatory training, restricted access, or probationary status.
(3) Such actions may be taken prior to a formal hearing if the conduct poses a risk to the safety, integrity, or orderly operation of the racing environment.
(4) A formal hearing shall be scheduled within a reasonable timeframe, not exceeding five (5) business days, to determine further sanctions or reinstatement.
(5) All disciplinary actions taken under this rule must be documented and reported to the Judges/Stewards Board and the Horse Racing Alberta regulatory office.

F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.

. United States – Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA)
HISA rules are currently enforced at 41 racetracks across 19 U.S. states. These rules include provisions for provisional suspensions and immediate disciplinary actions for conduct that threatens the integrity or safety of the sport.
• Under ADMC Rule 3229(a), any "Covered Person" (e.g., trainer, jockey) who violates rules—such as through doping or misconduct—may be provisionally suspended and barred from participating in racing activities until a formal hearing is held.
• These suspensions are not a determination of guilt but are used to protect the integrity of the sport and ensure safety.
2. New Mexico – Administrative Code § 15.2.1.9
The New Mexico Racing Commission allows for summary suspension of a licensee if their actions pose an immediate danger to public health, safety, integrity, or welfare of the horseracing industry.
• The stewards may suspend a license immediately, pending a hearing within 10 days.
• This rule is designed to prevent further harm or disruption while ensuring due process.

AGCO Standardbred Chapter 6: Violations Penalties, and Expulsions
6.01 The Judges may impose any or all of the following penalties for conduct prejudicial to the best interests of racing, or for violation of the Rules:
a. Refuse a person admission to the grounds of an Association;
b. Expel a person from the grounds of an Association;
c. Impose a monetary penalty, suspension or both; or
d. Impose conditions on a licence.

The Stewards shall take any action they deem necessary, including the warning of or ordering the ejection from the grounds of all persons who, by reason of past or present conduct would be regarded as objectionable should they find such person has in any manner or at any time:
a. Disturbed the peace;
b. Made themselves obnoxious on the grounds of any Association;
c. Shown disrespect by word or action to any official of racing;
d. Falsified, misrepresented or omitted required information on a licence application. The Racing Association shall enforce such an order.

G. Review the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta and identify any other Rules this change would affect and submit proposed amendments to those rules to comply with changes that would be made by this proposal.

286 g Conduct prejudicial to the best interests of horse racing
A person *violates these rules who,
(a) in the opinion of the *judges/stewards board, conducts themselves in a manner
prejudicial to the best interest of *horse racing, or
(b) does not comply with these or any *other rules.

-0-

Disqus Comments