Mike Lepore, a Thoroughbred owner and breeder, responded to my column last week about the informal audition for the Horse Racing Commissioner role. He acknowledged many of the flaws I highlighted, even ending his lengthy social media rant with the question, “Are you Team Jockey Club or Team Lepore??”—a simplistic and unhelpful way to frame a serious issue. As I discussed previously, forcing the Thoroughbred industry to pick sides like this is not a constructive approach. There’s room within horse racing for those who appreciate the Jockey Club’s contributions while also advocating for swifter reforms.
Lepore’s post began with a criticism that seemed misplaced. He wrote, “Unless you’re happy with the way things are in this industry, this is a really bad way to look at it.” But anyone who follows my writing knows I am far from content with the current state of Thoroughbred and Standardbred racing. My support for HISA is well-known, even if it’s controversial, and that certainly doesn’t reflect complacency. The creation of the Federal Horse Racing Regulatory Authority is arguably the sport’s most significant change in decades. If I were satisfied with the status quo, I wouldn’t back such a sweeping new approach to race integrity. Still, this kind of deflection appears to be a tactic of Lepore’s.
Not surprisingly, the article about Lepore stirred up plenty of reader feedback. Some supporters of Lepore defended his harsh critiques of the Thoroughbred industry’s leaders but often cited examples like racetrack closures that these leaders had little control over. Regardless of one’s view of the Jockey Club, blaming it for the shutdown of tracks such as Hollywood Park, Arlington Park, Calder Racecourse, Suffolk Downs, and Golden Gate Fields is unfair. While it’s natural to feel concerned about the decline in racing venues, understanding the many factors behind these closures is necessary in a decentralized industry.
Several readers offered practical suggestions. One, citing Lepore’s management experience, proposed starting with a blank slate to envision a national racing framework and then evaluating current weaknesses. However, this reader doubted a national consensus would ever emerge, noting states like Louisiana might resist figures like Lepore or Ed Martin. Another reader reminded us what a commissioner’s role typically entails: Neil Braithwaite explained that a traditional commissioner works best overseeing leagues with fixed teams and schedules, unlike horse racing, which is made up of individual owners who don’t directly compete. Horse racing persists regardless of whether some owners quit, and its structure resembles more of an oligopoly with occasional alliances rather than a traditional league.
Many readers criticized Lepore’s attacks on the Jockey Club and the Thoroughbred industry. One remarked, “Putting a super-wealthy man like Mike Lepore in charge of everything public is unlikely to benefit the everyday participant but certainly benefits him and his associates.” Another questioned Lepore’s ability to carefully process information before sending out social media messages, a criticism underscored by the Jockey Club’s response to Lepore’s aftercare plan. The Jockey Club stated Lepore’s plan was missing crucial elements like donor engagement, funding specifics, and success metrics. Lepore, however, insisted he had a precise fundraising strategy and had already met with potential funders.
Lepore’s often-threatened but never-filed lawsuit against the Jockey Club and others would likely revolve around claims that the Jockey Club’s rejection of his proposals amounts to restraint of trade. The defendants would argue that turning down business plans for various reasons isn’t an antitrust violation. This legal battle would rack up significant costs better spent on horse aftercare, rather than on prolonged disputes like Lepore’s confrontations with Jockey Club stewards.
Shifting to Standardbred racing, the United States Trotting Association (USTA) has been embroiled in a conflict over trainer Nicholas DeVita. The USTA suspended DeVita last November for refusing to cooperate with an investigation by the Standardbred Horse Research Fund (SRIF), a USTA initiative aimed at enforcing racing integrity more aggressively than state commissions. Although DeVita initially resisted, he eventually provided the requested information and was reinstated as a member in good standing. His saga involved multiple appeals and conflicting decisions between USTA districts and executives, highlighting the complex and sometimes opaque governance structure within the organization.
The dispute reached a turning point when the District 8 caucus overturned DeVita’s suspension, supported by USTA Secretary Mark Ford. However, USTA CEO Mike Tanner disagreed and reactivated the suspension in December. An executive committee meeting scheduled to address the issue was canceled, reportedly due to delays in DeVita’s contract, avoiding further embarrassment. The case has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, as Ford, an influential board member, defended DeVita while also holding roles within the USTA that might compromise impartiality. Attempts to obtain details of the District 8 meeting and statements from key figures were unsuccessful, underscoring a lack of transparency.
The USTA ultimately acted to prevent further fallout, as siding with DeVita against SRIF could effectively undermine the fund’s mission. However, the broader question remains: how widespread is dissent within the USTA regarding SRIF, and how will leadership navigate these internal tensions? The DeVita case reveals governance challenges that the USTA must address to maintain credibility and enforce integrity in Standardbred racing.
Meanwhile, on a more positive note, the American Trotting Association recently donated $10,000 to support the rescue of 10 Standardbreds found in severe neglect in New York. Rescuers had to use the jaws of life to free a stallion trapped in manure. Despite the cruelty, New York law’s provisions for animal welfare present challenges in prosecuting such cases. Former state trooper Sue McDonough explained that New York’s unique legal framework criminalizes neglect specifically around failing to provide adequate food, punishable by misdemeanors and potential prison time. The story underscores both the ongoing need for vigilance and the efforts underway to protect vulnerable horses.
Disclosure: The Jockey Club sponsors the Keeping Pace column.
Fan Take: These ongoing disputes and challenges highlight how complex and divided horse racing governance remains at both the Thoroughbred and Standardbred levels. For fans, these issues matter deeply because they impact the sport’s integrity, sustainability, and the well-being of the horses we all cherish—a clearer, more unified approach is essential to protecting racing’s future.
