House committee backs allowing attorney fees in horse-racing appeals

The House Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Standing Committee on Monday recommended favorably for substitute S.B. 276, a bill that would let the Department of Agriculture and Food seek attorney fees if it prevails in court challenges to positive drug tests involving racehorses.

Supporters said the change is aimed at discouraging trainers who use appeals and split-sample testing to continue racing animals they know were given illegal substances. Senator McHale, the bill sponsor, told the committee that drug-positive cases have occurred in Utah and nationally and that appeals have been used as a tactic to keep horses competing and collecting purse money while split-sample results are pending.

"If you appeal, that's great. If you do a split sample, that's great. But if you lose, you get to pay attorney fees," Senator McHale said. He described a recent high-profile case in which an All American winner at Ruidoso tested positive for a drug the senator named in testimony and said the state racing commission had lost "upwards of a hundred thousand dollars" fighting appeals.

McHale described common testing methods: blood and urine collected after races and hair samples taken before races. He told the committee that some trainers file appeals and then continue to race while levels of some drugs decline below detection thresholds; the testimony named several out-of-state testing laboratories that the state would use under rulemaking, including UC Davis and Colorado State University laboratories.

Amber Brown, director of legislative affairs for the Department of Agriculture and Food, told the committee the department supports the bill. "This addresses an important issue that arises when people run out the appeals process and continue to race," Brown said. "It will help make that whole process more fair by requiring those that don't prevail to be responsible for attorney's fees."

Representative Snyder moved to recommend the substitute bill favorably. The committee approved the motion by voice vote; no roll-call tally was recorded in the hearing.

The bill sponsor and committee members also noted an appropriation request related to the racing commission and said the fee-shifting change would complement that funding request. The committee took no further amendments on the bill during this hearing.

The committee hearing record does not specify the bill's next committee or floor schedule.