A. Brief Description of the Issue

Quarter Horse Jockey Weights

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
As you are aware, the physical demands on jockeys are considerable, and maintaining extremely low weights can pose health risks and limit the pool of qualified riders. Increasing the weight allowance — even modestly — could improve rider safety, expand participation, and align Alberta's standards more closely with other jurisdictions.

Who does the issue affect?
Owners, Jockeys, Trainers, Horses & Betting Public.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
193 t Weight range in minor meetings (added 02/19)
A Quarter Horse entered in a race in Alberta may not carry less than 124 pounds or more than
130 pounds in any race, without the consent of the steward's board

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
Increase base allowance to not carry less than 126 pounds or more than 136 pounds could improve rider safety, expand participation.

How will the solution fix the problem?
* Enhances jockey health and safety.
* Broadens access to qualified riders.
*Maintains competitive integrity and horse welfare.
* Protect the betting public by having quality Quarter Horse jockeys that are physical & mentally fit to give their best effort.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
No at the paddock jockey changes or scratches. due to overweight's & betters having to reconsider their bets.

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

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Increasing the weight allowance — even modestly — could improve rider safety, expand participation. Broadens access to qualified riders
Maintains competitive integrity and horse welfare.

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.
AQHRA
AQHA
QH Jockeys

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.
690cfd69047bb-agco.pdf

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]

Current Language: A Quarter Horse entered in a race in Alberta may not carry less than 124 pounds or more than
130 pounds in any race, without the consent of the steward's board.

New Language: A Quarter Horse entered in a race in Alberta may not carry less than 126 pounds or more than 136 pounds in any race, without the consent of the stewards.

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

Attached AGCO Quarter Horse-Chapter 8: Weights

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

The urging violations and riding crop rules

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
The concerns on this topic are giving our stakeholders the best chance for race placings

Who does the issue affect?
Jockeys'.... Owners,.... Trainers...bettors, racing fans etc.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
210t Use of riding crops
(3)(d)

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
Increase the number of strikes to 10 throughout the race (in the overhand cocked position)

How will the solution fix the problem?
There will be less punishment to all involved

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
It will affect all entities and stakeholders in a much more positive way

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

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
All stakeholders will have a greater chance to recoup there investments

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.
Support.... Jockeys', Owners, Breeders, Trainers, Racetrack operators,
Opposition....None

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
not that I am aware of

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]

210t Use of riding crops (3)(d) maximum of six strikes during a race...should be deleted and replaced with
maximum of 10 strikes during a race
All other sections pertaining to this rule are good

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

Manitoba...5(20) A Rider May...
(a) use the crop on the hindquarters to activate and focus the horse a maximum of 10 times during a
race. The rider must allow at least two strides for the horse to respond before using the crop again
All other sections to this rule are good

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 am aware of

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

Would like to be able to wear spurs while galloping.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
Not being able to wear spurs on problem horses I feels is a safety issue.
Having spurs helps me correct bad or dangerous behaviour. The spurs help me to keep them going straight or stop them from balking/spinning.

Who does the issue affect?
Every person out on the track. I feel this is a safety issue.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
I was told by the outrider (Barry Hodgson) this was a rule implemented by the previous outrider (Larry Dagg).

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
I feel that each individual rider should potentially be judged on experience and expertise. I know from my experience my horses are safer out on the track if I have spurs on.

How will the solution fix the problem?
I feel I personally would have more control over the horse I’m riding if I have spurs on.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
I’m not sure on this.

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

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Safety

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
Some people may not have the experience riding with spurs, or some may be too rough. This is why I suggest
each person should/could be judged on experience.

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.
I’ve spoken to some of the more experienced gallop people and they agree that spurs are used as a tool and are used for safety reasons.

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]

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

This is the only track I’ve been to that I couldn’t wear my spurs to gallop.

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

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-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

Rule 162t currently prohibits carrying over a cancelled program and requires it to be redrawn. We propose an
amendment to allow a cancelled card to be carried over and run in its original form within forty-eight (48)
hours without requiring a redraw.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
Problem/Concern: The current prohibition against carrying over a cancelled program forces redraws
even when the card could still be run as drawn within a short period of time. This creates unnecessary
administrative work, scheduling challenges, and disruptions for horsemen and bettors.

Who does the issue affect?
Owners, trainers, jockeys, racetrack operators, wagering providers, and HRA.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
162t(2) — “If a racing program or any portion of the program is cancelled for any reason, the overnight
events are not to be run off at a later date...”

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
Permit a cancelled program to be carried over in its entirety for up to 48 hours and run as originally drawn,
provided it is rescheduled within that timeframe.

How will the solution fix the problem?
Reduces unnecessary redraws, preserves fairness for horsemen who entered under the original conditions,
and provides racetracks with flexibility to maintain scheduled races.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
Benefits: More efficient scheduling, fewer redraws, greater stability for stakeholders, better chance to meet
performance targets, continuity for wagering.
Possible drawbacks: Potential for some horses to scratch if unavailable within 48 hours; minor adjustments
required for wagering/broadcast systems.

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

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Allow a cancelled card to be carried over up to 48 hours after a cancellation has occurred.

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.

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]

“If a racing program or any portion of the program is cancelled for any reason it will be eligible to be
carried over and contested within forty-eight (48) hours of the originally scheduled program without requiring a
redraw. If the program is not run within forty-eight (48) hours, the overnight events must be redrawn. A
sweepstakes on the cancelled program may also be run at a later date.

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

Woodbine (Ontario): In cases of weather-related cancellations, Woodbine has carried over the original card
to the following day or within 48 hours, maintaining the original draw. The system is well-accepted by
horsemen and wagering platforms, provided that notification is made promptly.
Hastings Racecourse (British Columbia): Hastings has a long-standing practice of carrying over cancelled
cards when extreme weather (heavy rain, air quality, or safety concerns) interrupts racing. These cards are
typically rescheduled intact within a short window, preserving field sizes and wagering interest.
Assiniboia Downs (Manitoba): When extreme weather leads to cancellation, Assiniboia Downs has at times
carried over the original entries to the next available racing day, avoiding the disruption of redrawing entire
programs.
United States Examples:
New York Racing Association (NYRA): Aqueduct and Saratoga have rescheduled entire cancelled cards
intact within 24–48 hours when extreme weather forced cancellation, with the approval of the New York
State Gaming Commission.
Maryland Jockey Club (Laurel/Pimlico): Cancellations due to weather have been carried over intact with the
same draw, maintaining integrity and fairness for stakeholders.

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

Current Rules Governing Horse Racing In Alberta preclude veterinarians from holding a "A" Thoroughbred Trainers License

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
As a licensed thoroughbred veterinarian and owner in Alberta I am prevented from training my own thoroughbreds and holding a practicing veterinarians license.

Who does the issue affect?
Myself and any other veterinarian who wished to hold a trainers license in addition to their veterinary license.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
Rule 36 (G) Conditions of a veterinarian license: The licensee will not apply for or hold a trainers license

65 (Bb) No trainer may be licensed as a licensed veterinarian or vice versa

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
I propose modifying the above rule to state 'except by special permission of the racing stewards' to allow a case by case assessment. This would allow me to apply for both licenses and the stewards to decide if it is possible to for me to hold both, and whatever restrictions might be imposed if necessary.

How will the solution fix the problem?
Allows the stewards discretion to award both licenses if they deem appropriate

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
It will benefit other stakeholders as it will allow me to continue to provide veterinary service to my clients should I decide to take my trainers license and scale back my current level of veterinary service. It is difficult to find veterinarians willing to work racetrack hours- I am currently hiring, but it is beneficial if I can continue to work at least some hours as well, and mentor younger veterinarians that may come to work in my practice. Also there are certain procedures that I am able to do (standing castration, myectomy) that most veterinarians are unable to do.

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

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
See above.

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
None that I am aware of. I believe the argument has been made that there is an issue of public perception with veterinarians holding trainers licenses but I believe that is not the case.

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]

in both cases add "except by special permission of the stewards"

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

Internationally many racing jurisdictions allow veterinarians to hold trainers licenses (in New Zealand when I practiced there the Vet I worked for had a trainers license). In Ontario veterinarians are currently allowed to also hold a trainers license.

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 would be impacted. As a holder of both license types I would be subject to the restrictions of both.

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

Mandatory Rest Period for Quarter Horses, Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds
Currently, Horse Racing Alberta (HRA) has no specific rule governing the minimum time required between race starts. This regulatory gap creates the potential for horses to be raced too frequently, which can negatively impact their health, safety, and long-term performance.

The frequency of starts is a critical factor in equine welfare. Repeated racing with inadequate recovery time increases the risk of musculoskeletal injuries, decreased performance, and shortened careers. While the majority of trainers act responsibly, clear and enforceable guidelines help ensure consistency across the industry and protection for horses in all barns.

A formal rule limiting the frequency of starts would align Alberta with best practices in other North American jurisdictions, including the standards set by Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) in the United States.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
The case against over-racing Quarter Horses, Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds centers on protecting equine health and welfare, maintaining long-term performance, and preserving the integrity and public trust in the sport. Horse Racing Alberta must adopt clear guidelines on the minimum rest period and/or maximum number of starts allowed within a defined timeframe.

Key Concerns Include:
1. Maintaining Equine Health:
Over-racing without sufficient recovery time increases the risk of musculoskeletal injuries, soft tissue damage, and long-term soundness issues. Horses subjected to repeated physical stress with inadequate rest are more vulnerable to breakdowns and shortened careers.
2. Safeguarding Horse Welfare:
The welfare of equine athletes must remain a top priority. Establishing clear limitations on race frequency signals a commitment to the humane and ethical treatment of horses, and supports their ability to have longer, more successful careers.
3. Preserving Industry Integrity and Reputation:
Public concern around catastrophic injuries and high-profile breakdowns has led to increased scrutiny of the sport. Implementing measures to prevent over-racing will enhance transparency, strengthen the social license to operate, and reinforce public confidence in Alberta racing.
4. Aligning with North American Best Practices:
Many leading jurisdictions—including those governed by HISA—require a minimum of 7 days between starts and closely monitor cumulative racing activity. Alberta risks falling behind industry standards without a similar rule.

Who does the issue affect?
• Horse Racing Alberta
• Racetracks: Century Downs Racetrack and Casino, Century Mile Racetrack and Casino, Evergreen Park, Rocky Mountain Turf Club
• Flat Trainers
• Flat Owners
• Harness Trainers
• Harness Owners

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
None.

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
A maximum race frequency rule will ensure that every racehorse will receive adequate rest and recovery periods between starts.

How will the solution fix the problem?
As racing dates and purse opportunities become increasingly limited, trainers and owners may feel pressured to race horses more frequently to maximize earnings or fill races and race cards to meet metrics or maximize handle. A formal rule will:
• Ensure equine athletes receive adequate rest and recovery time between starts
• Remove pressure from trainers and owners to over-race
• Provide clear guidelines for race secretaries when writing the condition book
• Align Alberta with best welfare practices seen in other jurisdictions
• Demonstrate industry commitment to responsible horse care and safety for all participants

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
The change could have a short-term negative effect on racing secretaries, trainers and owners who wish to race a horse more than the maximum allowed.

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

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Providing a rule against over racing will help protect the health and welfare of our equine athletes, and extend their longevity. The benefit of this rule can help decrease risk of injury and prioritize the health and welfare of flat racing horses in Alberta.

1. Horse Racing Alberta:
The long-term benefit includes extended racing careers due to better horse management and lower injury rates. This aligns with HRA's investments in Breed Improvement and Racehorse Procurement Incentives aimed at long-term sustainability.

2. Racetracks & Race Offices:
Over time, improved horse soundness may lead to more horses available to race over longer periods, balancing the short-term impact.

3. Trainers:
This rule supports responsible horsemanship and ensures that each horse receives sufficient rest. While some may consider relocating to jurisdictions with looser oversight, similar rules are becoming increasingly common across North America.

4. Owners:
The rule helps preserve the long-term earning potential of their horses by reducing injury risks and prolonging careers. Potential relocation of horses is mitigated as other jurisdictions are moving in a similar regulatory direction.

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
1. Horse Racing Alberta:
May experience challenges or push back from race tracks and horsemen’s organizations.

2. Racetracks and Race Offices:
May face initial difficulty filling some races if they previously relied on horses starting more frequently than every seven (7) days and/or more than three (3) times in 30 days.

3. Trainers:
Might pushback because they will not want to be dictated how often they race horses in their care. Will need to adjust training and entry strategies to comply with the rule.

4. Owners:
Owners seeking to maximize race starts and profitability may feel constrained.

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.
A request for input on the proposed rule change was sent to the following:
1) Alberta Community Thoroughbred Racing Association (ACTRA) - attached
2) Alberta Quarter Horse Racing Association (AQHRA) - none received
3) Alberta Standardbred Horse Association (ASHA) - attached
4) Canadian Thoroughbred Horse Society of Alberta (CTHS of Alberta) - attached

5) Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association of Alberta (HBPA of Alberta): (unable to attach document, comments are included)
We have had an opportunity to discuss this as a board and we would like to suggest the following edit to the petition:
Standardbreds, Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses shall not start more than three (3) times in a 30-day period.

6) Century Downs Racetrack and Casino - none received
7) Century Mile Racetrack and Casino - none received
8) Evergreen Park - none received
9) Rocky Mountain Turf Club - none received
10) The Track on 2 - none received

Are there any affected stakeholder groups that have not been consulted on this proposal?
Commission and licensed veterinarians. Commission veterinarians will provide input during the Regulatory discussion if the petition proceeds.

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.
2025-petition-3-actra-opposition-to-rule-change-petition.pdf
2025-petition-3-asha-opposition-to-rule-change-petition.pdf
2025-petition-3-cths-support-ltr-hra-rule-change-08-19-25.pdf

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]

Quarter Horses, Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds shall have a mandatory seven (7) days of rest between starts, and may not start more than three (3) times in a 30-day period.

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

Quarter Horses
• Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO):
Effective June 23, 2025 – Two-year-olds cannot race more than twice in 28 days; horses three and older cannot race more than twice in 21 days (Rule TB 6.01.01).

Standardbreds
• Illinois Racing Board:
Anecdotal information that Illinois specifies that two-year-olds must have two full days of rest between heats or races.

Thoroughbreds
• Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO):
Effective June 23, 2025 – Two-year-olds cannot race more than twice in 28 days; horses three and older cannot race more than twice in 21 days (Rule TB 6.01.01).

• Churchill Downs:
Horses may start no more than 4 times in a rolling eight-week period. Horses beaten by over 12 lengths in 5 consecutive starts are ineligible without medical clearance.

• California Horse Racing Board (CHRB):
Enforces a 7-day minimum between starts unless a horse is scratched.

• New York Racing Association (NYRA):
Requires a minimum of 6 full days between starts.

• Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA):

• Prohibits horses from starting more than once in a 7-day period

• Monitors cumulative starts and flags horses with 30+ lifetime starts or those at elevated risk due to age or frequency

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.

Following a review of the Rules Governing Horse Racing in Alberta, any rule referring to entry conditions, scratches, or fitness-to-race evaluations may require amendments or cross-referencing to ensure consistency with the new rule.

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

Many of the jockeys tests were showing false positives on their drug tests forcing them to be taken off their mounts.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
Faulty tests where jockeys were taken off their mounts due to a false positive. Many jockeys have had this problem this year.

Who does the issue affect?
First the jockeys, they work so hard to try and make weight and it’s a slap in the face when you face a false positive knowing that you did not do any drugs prior to racetime

Second, the trainers. Although this may not be every case but I know of trainers being very upset that their jockey who has spent countless hours with their horses not being able to ride it because of a false positive drug test

Third, the owners. Owners are trusting their trainers they have picked the best jockey for their horses. And when a jockey is scratched from their mount that close to race time, sometimes the trainers are forced to scratch their horses due to no jockeys available. The owners lose out on potential purse money and leaves a bad taste in their mouth with their jockey even when it was not their fault for the faulty test.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
Until the results of the confirmation test are provided to the *judges/stewards board, a *jockey or *driver will be required to undergo testing with a Security Investigator prior to recommencing work.

Should a subsequent test be negative, the *jockey or *driver will be permitted to return to their duties until the confirmation test results are provided to the *judges/stewards board.

Should any subsequent test be non-negative, the *jockey or *driver will be immediately removed from all mounts or drives until the confirmation test results are provided to the *judges/stewards board.

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
Test ALL jockeys before race day. Many times only a few have been selected to test which is unfair when using faulty tests. You guys need to bring in a RELIABLE third party testing that specializes in testing.

How will the solution fix the problem?
This provides fairness to ALL jockeys, trainers, and owners

As well as a professional drug testing company can provide security to the racetrack, the owners, and jockeys.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
Entities and Stakeholders will benefit greatly as their chosen jockey will have fairness and accountability for their tests done by trained professionals with the correct equipment that does not provide false positives.

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

What are the benefits of the proposed change?
Not as many jockey changes, jockeys will feel more confident in providing a drug test when using correct equipment, trainers may not need to scratch their horses when no other jockey is available

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
Cost of bringing in a professional company to do the proper testing

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.
-agrees on getting proper drug testing equipment
-agrees on the fact that they may not need to scratch their horse if professional tests has been performed
-agrees to fairness to ALL participants

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]

ALL jockeys must undergo a drug/alcohol testing prior to the first race. ALL drug testing will be performed by a certified professional and will have access to results right away. If negative tests occur, the jockey or driver will be taken off mounts for the day.

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

No, the drug testing is NOT performed by a professional. The drug tests that they use are very unreliable.

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.

This rule will affect the rules regarding the drug/alcohol section in the rules. But given this content, this will amend the rules to benefit the jockeys, trainers, and owners because this will provide fairness to all as well as a sense of security to the jockeys, knowing that their drug tests are relevant because they’re done by professionals who have professional equipment

-0-

Disqus Comments

A. Brief Description of the Issue

We have a number of the QH jockeys that are having a problem with the current weight restrictions.

B. Discussion of the Issue and Problem

What specific problems or concerns are involved in this issue?
Key Concerns include: Recently (August 14), we lost jockeys due to the current weight restrictions. One jockey passed out in the Casino due to reducing. The jockeys we currently have are exceptional and we would like to not lose anymore.

Who does the issue affect?
The issue affects all trainers and owners as we do not currently have enough jockeys to complete the riding card.

What existing HRA rules relate to this issue?
HRA rule is jockeys cannot weigh more than 130 lbs to ride.

C. Possible Solutions and Impact

What solution does this proposal provide?
The rule change would allow us to have enough QH riders for the races and possible attract more riders to up our jockey population.

How will the solution fix the problem?
We have spoken to the jockeys and this will be much healthier and possible for the jockeys.

How will the change affect any entities or stakeholders?
The change will positively affect the rider population by allowing them to be healthier and possibly increase number of jockeys coming here to ride. We need more QH riders. It should not negatively 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?
The proposed change should benefit all by helping jockeys be healthier and not having to risk their health to make riding weight.

What are the possible drawbacks of the proposed change?
We foresee no possible drawbacks to this rule 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.
Stakeholder consultation is required.
We have obtained a list of owners, jockeys, and trainers who are in support of the rule change.

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]

Current rule: 193 t Weight range in minor meetings
A Quarter Horse entered in a race in Alberta may not carry less than 124 pounds or more than 130 pounds in any race, without the consent of the steward's board.
Proposed rule change: Rule 193 t Weight change in minor meetings
A Quarter Horse entered in a race in Alberta may not carry less than 125 pounds with an overweight exemption limited to 9 pounds to be allowed at trainer's discretion.

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

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission revised jockey weight allowances for Quarter Horse racing in Ontario in March of 2017, raising the maximum weight for a rider to 130 pounds from 127. The directive came as a result of AGCO seeking consultation from the public and industry and receiving support for the raising of the maximum weights in Quarter Horse racing in an effort to bolster the jockey colony at Ajax Downs.

Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
Pari-mutuel Quarter Horse Racing shall be governed by the Rules of Thoroughbred Racing 2018, with the following exceptions:
Quarter Horse - Chapter 8: Weights
Last Updated
Wed, 01/31/2024

8.04.02 All horses in Quarter Horse Racing must carry from 120 lbs. up to and including 130 lbs. An overweight allowance limited to eight (8) lbs (Eight pounds) is allowed. All jockeys must declare their weight prior to riding the first race on any racing card and must ride at that weight for all races on that date. The afore mentioned weight must be posted prominently before the public prior to the mutuels opening for any race in which any jockey rides.
8.05.04 After unsaddling a jockey shall pass their equipment to a valet or will carry it to the scales to be weighed in.

8.16.05 The minimum weight shall be 105 pounds in any race.

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

MEETING: Century Mile Racetrack & Casino, Alberta, Canada November 27, 2025

WHEREAS on November 4, 2025, HORSE RACING ALBERTA issued Ruling #2025-01 against CENTURY CASINO INC., PERM. ADD.: EDMONTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, ALBERTA, CANADA; and WHEREAS Century Casino lnc.'s request for a STAY was DENIED; and WHEREAS Century Casino Inc. and HORSE RACING ALBERTA have reached a resolution of the issue.

It is ordered by the Director, Regulatory and Supervisor of Racing that HORSE RACING ALBERTA Ruling #2025-01 shall be AMENDED and replaced by HORSE RACING ALBERTA Ruling #2025-02. Whereas an investigation resulted in finding Century Casino Inc. did violate HORSE RACING ALERTA Rule 63(1)(a) by failing to provide a safe racing surface for the following dates that resulted in cancellation:

• September 6, 2025
• September 27, 2025
• October 1, 2025
• October 3, 2025

As a result of mitigating factors, the cancellation of the final race date of October 3, 2025, the penalty will be rescinded against Century Casino Inc., thereby reducing the original assessed penalty amount.

Therefore, Century Casino Inc. is hereby ASSESSED A PENALTY IN TOTAL OF TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($12,500.00) for the cancellation of racing on September 6, September 27, and October 1, 2025.

In accordance with HORSE RACING ALBERTA Rule 297(1) fine to be paid within ten (10) days of the date of the invoice provided.