Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Racing Commission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Racing commission asks to raise maximum fine, recover appeal costs; outlines purse funding sources
Summary
Ohio State Racing Commission requested the House Agriculture Committee approve an increase in its maximum fine from $10,000 to $50,000, authority to recoup appeal costs when its rulings are upheld, and outlined funding and purse distributions tied to casino and VLT revenue.
Sherry White, fiscal officer for the Ohio State Racing Commission, and Deputy Director Tanya Balmedis told the House Agriculture Committee the commission’s biennial budget request is designed to sustain promotion and regulation of pari‑mutuel horse racing without general revenue support.
Why it matters: The commission asked for a change in statutory language to increase the commission’s maximum fine from $10,000 to $50,000, citing adoption of the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) drug class and penalty guidelines and a 2023 court loss that required the commission to align with those guidelines. The commission said surrounding states use higher maximum fines and that higher penalties serve as a deterrent, promote parity and reduce the perception Ohio is permissive of doping.
White described the commission’s funding model: promotional funds (purses and supplements for Ohio‑bred horses) are paid from pari‑mutuel wagering and other dedicated funds including the Ohio Thoroughbred Race Fund, the Ohio Standardbred Development Fund, the Horse Racing Development/Casino Fund and a share of casino revenue and VLT funds. The commission said it recently exercised authority to use up to 10% of casino revenue for operating expenses and that purses have risen since the creation of those redistribution funds.
The commission also asked for statutory authority to pass appellate costs to licensees when the commission’s ruling is upheld; witnesses said appeals are increasingly expensive and can exceed the fine amount. White said drug testing and veterinary services are major operating costs and that a nationwide shortage of large-animal veterinarians has increased expenses.
On process, Balmedis described the appeals flow: steward ruling → hearing officer (de novo) → commission review → appeal to Court of Common Pleas → potential appeal to the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The commission said prior practice absorbed appeal costs when a licensee prevailed; a court ruling required changes to how costs are assessed, prompting the requested statutory language.
Lawmakers asked for more detail on state-by-state penalty structures, the criteria that trigger maximum fines under ARCI guidelines, and financial figures for promotion and regulation programs; the commission offered to provide additional data. No formal legislative action was taken during the hearing.
