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The rule 112 g in the rulebook is outdated.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
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-