What responsibilities does a Thoroughbred trainer have when a horse owner—who is also the horse’s veterinarian—administers a banned substance secretly and then deceives the trainer about it? A recent Federal Trade Commission ruling, involving Fairmount Park trainer Vance Childers, provides a clear answer: trainers are expected to actively question barn staff about veterinary treatments, request detailed treatment records, and implement monitoring systems to oversee veterinary care rather than relying solely on the veterinarian’s word.
The case centered on two geldings, Tigger Attack and Childersattack, owned by Dr. Donald McCrosky’s wife. In October 2024, both horses tested positive for testosterone levels that exceeded limits set by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA). McCrosky later admitted to injecting testosterone into Tigger Attack, and by the time the case reached the FTC, both parties agreed that he administered testosterone to both horses. Although Childers was unaware of these actions prior to receiving notification from HISA’s enforcement unit, HISA acknowledged that McCrosky had deliberately misled the trainer about the substances given to his horses.
McCrosky was separately suspended for 16 years and fined $250,000 for multiple anti-doping violations, including those involving the two horses in question. Despite this, Administrative Law Judge Jay Himes held Childers partially responsible, reasoning that he failed to sufficiently supervise or monitor McCrosky’s veterinary treatments. According to HISA’s Anti-Doping and Medication Control rules, trainers have a “personal and non-delegable duty” to ensure banned substances do not appear in their horses, which includes actively supervising veterinarians and maintaining oversight systems.
Judge Himes noted that Childers did not instruct his brother or barn staff to monitor veterinary treatments, nor did he inquire with grooms about what substances McCrosky was giving, how often, or why. This was particularly significant in Tigger Attack’s case, where McCrosky told investigators he administered testosterone after a groom reported the horse was eating poorly. Childers testified that he expected barn staff to inform him of any major issues but never directly sought McCrosky’s treatment records for either horse or others under his care. Himes stated that refusal or failure by McCrosky to provide such records should have been a clear warning sign.
Childers argued that his only source of information was McCrosky, who provided misleading answers, labeling substances as “vitamins” or a “build-up.” However, Himes countered that Childers was not powerless—Childers himself admitted that McCrosky was vague about treatments, and although relatively inexperienced and trusting when he took over his grandfather’s business in 2020, Childers conceded that he continued racing horses without knowing exactly what treatments they were receiving, acknowledging this was risky to both horse and human welfare.
The judge concluded that Childers did not demonstrate having an effective system to ensure veterinary treatments followed HISA rules or to properly oversee McCrosky’s work. Considering the circumstances, Himes reduced Childers’ suspension from 46 months to 20 months but upheld a $30,000 fine and disqualified the October 2024 race results of both horses. Despite the judge’s reservations about the suspension length, no further reductions were deemed appropriate.
Fan Take: This ruling highlights the critical need for trainers to actively manage and verify veterinary treatments to protect their horses and uphold the sport’s integrity. For horse racing fans, it underscores how transparency and accountability at all levels can prevent doping scandals and preserve public trust in the fairness of racing.
Source: sports.yahoo.com
