Proposed Rule and Bylaw Changes 2013

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Proposed Rule and Bylaw Changes 2013"

Alexandrina Hines
5 years ago
Views:

1 Proposed Rule and Bylaw Changes 2013 [The following proposed Rule and Bylaw changes will be considered by the membership at each District s Annual Meeting and be voted upon by the USTA Board of Directors at the 2012 Annual Meeting.] 1. A proposal to clarify Bonus Earnings relative to Conditioned Races by adding the following language to under Rule 4, Section 6(a): All money earned shall be credited to the horse s winnings at the same time as advertised purse earnings and shall include any bonus earnings or other supplemental payments paid to the horse s owner. Salvatore DiMario, Dover, DE [The source states: To restore integrity to the money based condition system, when bonus money is paid to a horse in an overnight event in addition to the advertised purse and it is not reported in the horse s earnings, it under minds the integrity of that condition system and is both inaccurate and misleading to the public. Contemporaneous earnings reporting of bonus money received in overnight events will provide the public with accurate information. Accuracy of this type is essential to maintain the public s confidence and USTA s position as the industry s record keeper. ] 2. Ad New Subsection (29) to Rule 9, to read as follows: Race Numbering Race numbers will be sequential starting at 1 (one) and non duplicated for each group of races with a common race type as defined by the USTA for any given calendar day. Race Types (and corresponding race codes) include the following: 1 Qualifier, 2 Time Trial, 3 Baby Race, 4 Official Work Out, 5 Afternoon PM, 6 Evening PM, 7 Matinee, 8 Afternoon Fair, 9 Evening Fair. Source: David C. Siegel, President, TrackMaster, USTA Director 1

2 [The source states: Issue and Background: There is no existing rule to prevent tracks from having the same race number appear with the same race type on a given calendar day. For example, a track can host two Qualifying Cards on the same day and number the race 1 to 5 and again 1 to 5 instead of 1 to 10. In addition, tracks can number races 1,2,3,8,9,10. The e Track system cannot prevent this without a rule to fall back on. The Problem: Several times each year, race numbers (on the same card) are duplicated. This causes issues primarily with uniquely identifying races for database purposes which causes a nightmare for product production tying races and horses together. How do we know horse A ran against horse B in the same race when both ran on 1/1/2012 at ABC Track in a race type 1 (Qualifier). It makes tying video replays and charts together with performance lines difficult and can result in inaccurate output. It causes some confusion when the public sees running lines with the same trackdate race number class when in fact the horses were in different races. The Solution (straightforward and cost free): Adopt the rule change proposed below that unique and sequential race numbering and which will allow the e Track system to catch errors before they are submitted into the USTA database. ] 3. A proposal to amend Rule 14, Section 1 (b) to prohibit a horse to enter and race in more than one county fair on any given day. Source: Betty Holt, East Chatham, NY [The source states: People enter to race in two county fairs and then pick the one with the least entries/divisions and do not honor the declaration and in some case do not pay the entry fee at the other fair. ] Note: Rule 14, Section 1(l) provides for collection of the entry/starting fee of horses who withdrawn without permission of the Judges and the collection of any outstanding entry/starting fee. 4. A proposal to amend to Amend Rule 17, Section 4(d), by changing the name and requirements for P Provisional drivers to be in effect junior drivers and allowed to claim concessions? It would give more opportunity 2

3 for men and women to show what they are able to do, instead of them having a hard time getting the drives. Source: Allan Schott, Mahwah, New Jersey [The source states: What is a driver's concession? In South Australia (yes, there to rules are not consistent), a junior driver license is valid until the end of the season the year they turned 23 unless they won the maximum of 200 victories or 50 victories at Metropolitan tracks allowed. So a driver would be able to win 200 victories at a track like Monticello or 50 victories at Yonkers Raceway; had their junior license for five years; or turned 23, whichever came first before becoming a full driver. The bottom line is a junior driver is similar to an apprentice jockey; in many races a junior driver is given a concession of racing their horse in one lower class than they belong in. We use a different system of classifying horses than they do in Australia, but in North American terms, a horse that qualifies for a NW3LT classification would be allowed to race in a NW2LT race. As with thoroughbred racing, some races, such as stakes, junior drivers are not eligible for claiming the driver s concession. It seems trainers and owners are seeing that certain horses are responding better to women drivers so some owners are insisting women drivers be used on their horses. Hence, there are more women driving in races. Of course, a junior driver s license is not limited to women; it is eligible for all young drivers, regardless of sex. This gets me wondering, would a junior driver s license be better than our system of provisional driver? Not only for giving all provisional drivers more opportunities, but giving women a greater opportunity of proving they belong in the sulky and not just in the barn. 5. A proposal to amend Rule 17, Section 5, Subsection (c) to read as follows: "Be at least 16 years of age for an (M) license." Source: Chris Wittstruck, Jordan Stratton, Joe Faraldo, David Siegel, John Brennan, Bruce Tubin 3

4 [The source states: There is a legitimate concern that many below the age of 16 lack the requisite maturity to compete in a race against other licensees. While a highly precocious 12, 13, 14 or 15 year old might be the anomaly, and biological age alone might not be the best determinant, it is felt that the overwhelming majority of enthusiasts who have not achieved age 16 might pose a danger to themselves and other participants in race competition. This proposal was precipitated in large part by an incident where a presiding judge prohibited a 12 year old "M" licensee from driving an unraced two year old filly at Goshen, NY. Probably a very wise decision. This change would advance the important interest of safety, while continuing to encourage teenage participation in the sport. According to the Source, from 1/1/2011 to date: There were 122 unique drivers that raced in Matinee ("M") races. There were 368 starters in these races. There was 1 start with a 13 year old driver. There were no starts with any 12 year old, 14 year old or 15 year old driver. From 1/1/2007 to date (5+ years): There were 660 unique drivers that raced in Matinee ("M") races. There were 2044 starters in these races. There were no 12 year old drivers. There were two 13 year old drivers (total of 2 starts). There was one 14 year old driver (total of 2 starts) There were two 15 year old drivers (total of 2 starts). For the above five drivers driving a total of 6 starts, the one 14 year old driver, became a 15 year old the next year, so a total of four unique individuals in the above "mix" The proposal that the age for "M" races be changed to 16, would make it consistent with the Q/F license. The difference between Joe's proposal and this one in the last 18 months would have been nothing. Going back 5 1/2 years, there would have been two drivers, driving a total of 2 starts as a 15, that would have been affected. This proposal makes things a little bit cleaner (we would only have a 16 year old and 18 year old age association with licenses), and makes it a little more consistent with many states car licensing age cut offs and working paper eligibility.] 4

5 6. Amend Rule 24, Section 1, to change the timing of races from fifths of seconds to one hundredths of a second. Source: Eric Cherry, Delray Beach, Florida [The source states: The reason for the change is to be more accurate and give the appearance of staying current with technology instead of being antiquated. When races were originally timed in 1/5 of seconds it was the state of the art technology at the time. In the aftermath of the recently completed Beijing Olympics where two gold swimming medals were decided by 1/100 of a second, it appears that racing is technologically archaic by continuing to time horses in fifths of a second. We show horses beaten by a half length as going the same time as the winner. New fans to the sport are amazed that we have not upgraded to this standard. This is not an expensive fix and will demonstrate that racing is keeping current with the times. ] 7. A proposal to amend Rule 26, Section 2(h) by changing to first sentence to read as follows: the status of a previously registered Standardbred may be changes to Pleasure Horse upon application by the owner and surrender of the Registration Certificate to the USTA. Source: USTA Staff (Ellen Harvey, TC Lane) [The source states: This adds the requirement of surrendering current papers, which had previously been required in administration of the rule. 8. A proposal to add new section to Rule 20 STANDARD OF CONDUCT to read as follows: Any person who shall represent themselves to be the registered owner of a horse knowing said horse to be owned wholly or in part by a person or persons barred or otherwise disqualified from participating in racing shall be suspended from membership in this Association for a minimum of 1 year. 5

6 Source: USTA Staff (Chip Hastings) [The source states: This would help address the issue of people who do not qualify for membership or are otherwise banned from owning/racing horses in someone else s name as the registered owner. ] 9. A proposal to amend the Bylaws to provide that any appeal from the denial, revocation or suspension of membership under the provisions of Article 3, Section 4 must be heard by the Full Board of Directors. Source: Russell C. Williams, Hanover, PA 10. A proposal to amend Article 1, section 3, (m) to read as follows: Forthwith, any person who been the subject of a final order in a prosecution under any state animal welfare statute shall be disqualified from membership in this Association for a minimum period of one year with the length of disqualification beyond one year to be determined by the gravity of the offense. Source: USTA Staff (Ellen Harvey) [The source states: Replaces horse with animal and also replaces admitted or finally adjudicated with been the subject of final order in a prosecution under any animal welfare statute. This change is necessary because of the great diversity among states and courts in states in the manner of handling animal related prosecutions. Courts can and do impose legally binding orders in response to facts of the case without a conviction. Also, state rules are written regarding animals without distinctions for species and this makes us parallel those regulations. ] 6

2013 RULE CHANGES. A horse shall not be permitted to race unless:

2013 RULE CHANGES. A horse shall not be permitted to race unless: 2013 RULE CHANGES Rule 14. Definitions (74) "Standardbred Horse" means a horse, mare, colt, filly, gelding or ridgling duly registered as a purebred standardbred (must have a minimum of seven eighths of