Louisiana Administrative Code Title 35 - HORSE RACING
1. Medication Overages – Trainer Liability Case
Issue: Positive test for prohibited substance; strict-liability rule for trainers
LAC Title 35 Involved:
§1501–1527 (Medication Control)
§1781 (Absolute Insurer Rule)
Facts:
A trainer’s horse won a race at Delta Downs. Post-race testing detected clenbuterol above the permitted threshold. The trainer argued that the drug resulted from an error by a groom administering medication used for another horse.
Ruling:
The Louisiana Racing Commission applied the Absolute Insurer Rule, which makes trainers strictly responsible for any prohibited substance found in their horse, regardless of intent.
Outcome:
Purse redistribution
30-day suspension
Fine issued
Horse disqualified
Legal Reasoning:
The Commission held that Title 35’s medication rules are critical to ensuring integrity and fairness, and that allowing “employee error” as a defense would undermine uniform enforcement. The Commission emphasized that intent is irrelevant under §1781.
2. Jockey Use of Excessive Whip – Safety & Conduct Case
Issue: Improper whipping and endangering other riders
LAC Title 35 Involved:
§2391–2399 (Riding Rules)
§2711 (Cruelty/Abuse)
Facts:
During a stakes race at the Fair Grounds, a jockey struck his horse more than the permitted number of times, raising his arm above shoulder height and causing the horse to veer, nearly clipping another rider.
Ruling:
Stewards found a violation of both whip-use restrictions and failure to maintain proper course.
Outcome:
7-day riding suspension
Mandatory safety-training session
Mounted video review with stewards
Legal Reasoning:
Title 35 requires jockeys to ride with “competent skill and judgment.” Excessive whip use can cause erratic movement, endangering horses, riders, and betting integrity. The Commission applied progressive discipline, noting the rider’s prior warnings.
3. Licensing & Background Check Dispute – Trainer Denied License Renewal
Issue: Failure to disclose criminal history; suitability for licensure
LAC Title 35 Involved:
§2311–2327 (Occupational Licensing)
§2331 (Truthfulness Requirements)
Facts:
A trainer applied for license renewal but omitted a recent felony plea on the application. The racing stewards discovered the omission through routine fingerprint background checks.
Ruling:
The license was denied for “material misrepresentation.” The trainer appealed, arguing that the plea was under appeal and not yet final.
Outcome:
Denial upheld
Trainer banned from racetrack grounds until reapplication permitted
Commission stressed duty of full disclosure
Legal Reasoning:
Title 35 mandates absolute honesty in licensing paperwork. Even incomplete or pending charges must be disclosed. The Commission held that racing is a “privilege,” not a right, and the sport’s integrity depends on trustworthy participants.
4. Race Interference & Objection Case – Steward’s Inquiry
Issue: Determining whether interference altered the race outcome
LAC Title 35 Involved:
§2391–2399 (Riding Rules)
§2415 (Interference Standards)
Facts:
In a close finish at Evangeline Downs, Horse A drifted out in the stretch and impeded Horse B. Jockey of Horse B lodged an objection. Video review showed contact occurred but the race time suggested Horse A was still superior.
Ruling:
Stewards held that interference occurred but did not affect the final placement.
Outcome:
No change in order of finish
Jockey of Horse A fined for “failure to maintain a straight course”
Owners of Horse B protested but ruling was affirmed
Legal Reasoning:
Title 35 distinguishes between:
Interference, and
Interference that alters the outcome.
Only the latter requires disqualification. The stewards determined the margin of victory and degree of impediment did not meet the standard for altering the result.
5. Racing Secretary Discretion Challenge – Entry Refusal Case
Issue: Whether a racing official may refuse entry of a horse based on safety concerns
LAC Title 35 Involved:
§1705 (Authority of Racing Secretary)
§1713 (Safety & Soundness Requirements)
Facts:
A veteran horse with repeated poor performances was refused entry because the racing secretary believed the horse was “unsound and uncompetitive.” The owner appealed, arguing discrimination and arbitrariness.
Ruling:
The Commission sided with the racing secretary after reviewing veterinary reports and prior race data.
Outcome:
Entry refusal upheld
Horse required to pass a full veterinary exam before any future entry
Legal Reasoning:
Title 35 grants the racing secretary discretion to refuse a horse’s entry to protect safety and maintain competitive integrity. The Commission emphasized that administrative decisions are valid if supported by any credible evidence of safety risk.
6. Betting Pool Irregularity – Pari-Mutuel Wagering Investigation
Issue: Attempted manipulation of exotic betting pool
LAC Title 35 Involved:
§3101–3155 (Wagering Integrity Rules)
Facts:
An unusual pattern was detected in the Pick-5 pool at the Fair Grounds. A bettor attempted to place a large number of last-second “cancel-and-rebet” wagers to influence pool totals visible to other bettors.
Ruling:
Stewards concluded the bettor intended to manipulate perceived “smart money” signals.
Outcome:
Account suspended
Bettor barred from wagering for six months
Rule clarification issued to all racetracks
Legal Reasoning:
Under Title 35, wagering must reflect genuine betting intent. Manipulative activity undermines fair competition and violates Louisiana’s strict pari-mutuel protections.
7. Unauthorized Race Equipment – Trainer Responsibility Case
Issue: Use of unapproved blinkers without stewards’ notification
LAC Title 35 Involved:
§1737 (Equipment Changes)
Facts:
A trainer added a new style of blinkers designed to restrict lateral vision beyond typical racing equipment. The change was not submitted to stewards before entry.
Ruling:
Using unauthorized equipment is a strict-liability violation.
Outcome:
$500 fine
Horse disqualified after finish
Mandatory pre-race inspection for next three starts
Legal Reasoning:
Title 35 requires all equipment changes to be approved to prevent unfair advantage. Intent is irrelevant; responsibility lies with the trainer.
RELATED Blog
comments