I have long supported the idea of having a commissioner oversee horse racing, as such a figure can unite the various segments of the industry, helping it work towards common goals with clarity and harmony. However, I had never seriously considered the specific traits I wanted in a “race commissioner” — someone who ideally would be a benevolent yet firm leader, wise but humble, strong when necessary, and willing to compromise when possible. The challenge is akin to “herding cats”: convincing diverse stakeholders to surrender some power for the collective good.
We all share the foundational desire to improve the sport’s future — to safeguard the welfare of racehorses, maintain the integrity of the industry, grow betting pools and breeding programs, and defend against political pressures from animal rights activists, lawmakers, and the judiciary. We want to protect horses throughout their racing years and into retirement, a goal everyone should agree on. Yet, as with any complex industry, disagreements arise over the details. A major question is the source of the commissioner’s authority—who grants power to someone like Mike Lepore, and what is exchanged for that? Neither the Federal Trade Commission nor the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Administration (HISA) seem poised to hand over authority to a commissioner. Nor can the state racing commissions be expected to relinquish their remaining powers to such an office. Furthermore, what happens if a commissioner’s authority is recognized in one jurisdiction but not another?
Mr. Lepore’s increasingly aggressive social media attacks on key stakeholders, such as the Jockey Club—one of his “Keeping Pace” column sponsors—have prompted reflection on the commissioner’s role. Lepore has threatened litigation against prominent Thoroughbred figures, and rumors circulated recently that he had formally notified them of impending legal actions. At this stage, I can only say I’m watching closely and will analyze developments based on my legal background. Generally, lawyers tend to benefit most when plaintiffs claim “this is the rule” in disputes.
Lepore seems to grasp this reality, which might explain his shift from targeting federal regulators to challenging private organizations critical to the sport. If he were to sue, antitrust laws would likely pose a significant hurdle, as courts rarely uphold such claims merely because a group rejects someone’s business proposal. This was central to Lepore’s recent social media statements, which drew widespread attention.
In a recent podcast interview with Nick Luck, Lepore reportedly warned the Jockey Club and the industry: what can’t be won through negotiation will be taken by force. Is he threatening to tear down everything in the sport—both good and bad—well beyond aftercare issues? Will a wealthy owner pursue such drastic measures under the guise of championing the “underdog” fighting monopolies? Is this the confrontational, all-or-nothing approach we want from a commissioner?
I reached out to Lepore for clarity on when he might file his lawsuit and whether it would be publicly accessible, and whether he’d engaged in discussions with the Jockey Club to resolve disputes. His responses focused on exchange about timing with the Paulick Report publisher, but he did not directly answer my fundamental questions, leaving many uncertain about what comes next. Perhaps the litigation threat itself is a strategic tool, like the Sword of Damocles. Whether this tactic truly benefits the sport remains to be seen.
I hope Lepore’s National Thoroughbred Alliance will collaborate with the Jockey Club and other partners to protect horses from slaughter, and it would be great to see innovative billionaires join this cause. Yet I struggle to see how a failure between these groups could form the basis of a legitimate antitrust case. Lepore’s frustration at the rejection of his ideas is understandable, but a commissioner expressing it through the threat of lawsuits over mere disagreement is problematic.
Frequently, the threat of pretrial discovery pressures parties toward settlement, which is certainly a factor here, as Lepore seeks private communications after embarrassing those officials. There’s no guarantee he will succeed in obtaining the information, as motions to dismiss are expected. But even if he clears early legal obstacles, what vision does he hold for horse racing without major entities like the Jockey Club or Breeders’ Cup? After spending millions on litigation, can he realistically work alongside those groups?
Lepore’s recent outbursts have made his volatile audition for “commissioner” a fascinating saga. I don’t know if his disruptive tactics will succeed, but his vision clearly differs from mine. Following his social media can be unpredictable: sometimes funny, sometimes harsh, sometimes kind, sometimes off-putting. He is a significant and memorable figure in modern horse racing.
It’s clear Lepore voices frustrations many share about American racing, and he has earned a platform. Industry figures should seek reform proactively rather than waiting for regulators or courts to intervene. But a successful commissioner must persuade stakeholders to reconsider entrenched views—not through yelling, insults, or legal threats. History teaches that dictators fail because no one remains to challenge their mistakes.
Turning to legal matters, Santa Anita Park owners have sued California officials after the state seized 26 historic Racing on Demand (HHR) machines installed at the track, without prior notice. The state also threatens to destroy the machines. Notably, the California Horse Racing Board supported these devices as recently as last December, highlighting conflicting messages among state agencies. There’s also tension between horse racing interests and Native American gaming tribes. This lawsuit will likely reach the state Supreme Court, costing millions in legal fees, but the outcome may hinge more on politics than legal interpretations. The California Supreme Court recently sided against tribal efforts to shut down card rooms, suggesting precedent could favor Santa Anita.
On another front, the federal horse racing regulator, HISA, has solicited public comments on proposed rule changes, including sample collection, mediation options, and owner intervention rights. If you want to improve HISA’s fairness and effectiveness, now is a chance to submit feedback. Public engagement can shape policy, so don’t miss this opportunity to influence the sport’s future.
(This article originally appeared in the Paulick Report on January 26, 2026.)
Fan Take: This unfolding drama around the horse racing commissioner position and associated legal battles is crucial for fans, as it highlights deep divisions that could redefine the sport’s governance and unity. How these conflicts resolve—or escalate—could profoundly impact the welfare of racehorses and the industry’s ability to thrive long-term.
