Bill Overview
Title: To provide an extension of authority for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority.
Description: This bill delays implementation of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority until January 1, 2024.
Sponsors: Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in the horse racing industry
Estimated Size: 2000000
- Horseracing is an industry with an international presence, including horses race in multiple countries.
- The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority impacts the regulatory landscape for horse racing in the U.S., influencing safety standards and integrity practices.
- Participants in the horse racing industry include jockeys, owners, trainers, breeders, and fans. Globally, millions of people are involved in horseracing.
- Horseracing entities in the U.S. may have international operations or partnerships hence impacting international stakeholders.
- Globally, the number of people directly involved in or employed by the horse racing industry is significant, numbering in the millions.
Reasoning
- The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority delay impacts regulations meant to improve safety and integrity. This affects various stakeholders with varying degrees based on their role in the industry.
- Jockeys, trainers, and breeders are directly impacted by safety regulations, which influence their well-being and operational costs.
- Fans and bettors might experience indirect impacts, as the regulatory framework could affect the overall racing experience and perception of the sport.
- Given the budget and program constraints, only a subset of directly impacted individuals might experience change in well-being.
- Commonness scores help simulate the likelihood of various profiles within the broader population.
Simulated Interviews
Jockey (Kentucky)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been looking forward to improved safety standards.
- Delay in implementation is disappointing, as my personal safety is a core concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Racehorse Trainer (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The delay might give us more time to prepare, but also prolongs uncertainty.
- Our international relations might suffer with inconsistent rules.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Horse Racing Enthusiast (New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm mostly concerned about the safety and ethics of the races I enjoy.
- If standards don't improve, it can affect my fan experience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Horse Owner (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The delay means better safety might also mean higher short-term costs due to lack of standardization.
- I hope for clear rules across the industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Race Betting Analyst (Florida)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Consistent regulations would stabilize our predictions and betting odds.
- This delay maintains uncertainty in risk assessments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Regulatory Affairs Officer in Horse Racing (Ohio)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The delay of implementation is frustrating as progress on safety and integrity is essential
- Working on interim policies to bridge gaps
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Breeder (Florida)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The delay might give us more time to refine practices, but also saves on initial compliance costs.
- Better standards are needed for long-term benefits
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Equine Veterinarian (Maryland)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Deferred safety standards leave horses at risk longer.
- Important to align practices with the international community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 10 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Horse Racing Commentator (Virginia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Delays in implementing safety standards might hinder the sport's perception.
- Eager to see more progress at upcoming races.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Horse Racing Casino Manager (Nevada)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulatory consistency is crucial for maintaining bettor's trust.
- The delay adds a layer of unpredictability to our business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Delaying the implementation allows more time for adjustment to new regulations, potentially reducing immediate disruption or pushbacks.
- An extension provides an opportunity to refine or adapt existing systems to better align with the upcoming stricter regulatory framework.
- Timing of implementation may align better with industry cycles, ensuring readiness without undue financial pressure.