A. Brief Description of the Issue
Currently there is no forum to review a steward or judges ruling other than to pay a fee to go directly to the 3-person Horse Racing Alberta appeals board. This is very costly and lengthy for cases that may be able to be reviewed quickly in between.A Regulatory Review Panel (RRP) would serve as an intermediate review body between the Board of Stewards/Judges and the HRA Appeal Board.
Its purpose is to:
• Provide an impartial and timely review of steward/judges’ rulings upon request by a licensee.
• Promote consistency, fairness, and transparency in regulatory decisions.
• Reduce the number of formal appeals requiring full adjudication.
B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem
What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
This could be a very practical option for improving fairness and efficiency in the horse racing regulatory system. Between the Stewards/Judges (who issue rulings on race day and immediate conduct matters) and the Appeal Board (which hears formal appeals under administrative law), many jurisdictions use an intermediate or “review” body.
Who does the issue affect?
This issue affects all licensees.
What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
There is no existing rule related to this issue.
C. Possible Solutions and Impact
What solution does this proposal provide?
Review Panel or Review committee that acts as a middle step between the Stewards/Judges and Appeal Board - reviewing rulings, penalties, or disputes for consistency and fairness before escalation.
How will the solution fix the problem?
This solution addresses the lengthy and costly process currently required to appeal a steward or judge’s decision to the Appeal Board.
How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
This issue impacts all licensees by offering a more balanced, accessible, and timely avenue for having their concerns reviewed.
How will you or your organization be affected by the proposed change?
What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Benefits of the proposed change is that horsemen can feel they are heard quickly; ideally within 7 days, and that they have an option. The greatest benefit is that it will save time and money that the HRA appeals board and lawyers involved create by reducing formal appeals and giving horsemen an optional fair chance.
What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
Drawback of this change is finding the committee that everyone will feel comfortable with in regards of integrity and at an arms length.
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?
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]
Regulatory Review Panel
1) A Regulatory Review Panel is hereby established by Horse Racing Alberta (HRA) to provide an intermediate level of review between the decisions of the Stewards or Judges and the HRA Appeal Tribunal.
(2) The purpose of the Panel is to promote procedural fairness, consistency, and proportionality in regulatory decision-making prior to the initiation of a formal appeal.
F. Do any racing jurisdictions currently have a version of this rule in effect? If yes, please attach copies of those rules.
Kentucky Horse Racing Commission uses “hearing officers” who issue recommended orders.
California uses "hearing officers”.
Victoria Australia has “Racing Integrity Panels” that review stewards’ decisions before an external tribunal.
Queensland Australia has a “Review Panel” before going to external tribunals.
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.
Possibly be added to 296 g
-0-