Churchill Downs asks the FTC to investigate the @jockeyclub “sister company” @hisa_us. Every horse racing publication covers it. BloodHorse: 🦗🦗🦗 I’m sure the fact that BloodHorse is owned by The Jockey Club has absolutely nothing to do with it. 😂 Completely independent. Nothing to see here. 😂😂🤣 Minutes ago, they did have the time to post about Aidan O’Brien’s confidence in Constitution River. 😂 In all seriousness, BloodHorse, how the f$&k can you not have a story on this major news??? Whenever you discover it, I’m available for comment. It’s almost eight hours since the news broke, but I’m sure, because of this post, you’ll have something out later.

Still by far the best HRX community pic you will ever find! We all know who this is. Don’t we? I believe X has closed at least four of his accounts. He may be on his fifth or six by now.

.@WWLTV producer Danny Montverde was placed in handcuffs by Orleans sheriff’s office court security officers after objecting to the closed-door nature of the proceeding.

‡ About Those Enhanced PPs... In case you hadn't heard about this recently revealed issue, images of two sets of customized past performances were posted (one example is attached), and caused a stir because they had been "enhanced" with veterinary data. That data included notations of intra-articular injections, and shockwave therapy. There are several problems with such data being found in customized PPs that are not available to the general public. The information is widely presumed to be private and proprietary. Veterinarians are not allowed to divulge such information without the consent of the owner or trainer of the horse in question, nor should anyone else, even given "authorized" access to a related database. There has been speculation online about related questions, some thoughtful, and predictably, some reckless. I'll review what I consider to be a few of the main questions, and provide my thoughts on the most likely answers, based on what has come to light thus far. • Who were/are the consumers of the custom PPs? It seems most likely that they were provided, or sold to at least one CAW entity. CAWs have more resources and power than individual consumers, and the PPs were enhanced with more than veterinary information, including multiple speed figures (i.e. Ragozin and Beyer), workout grades, and pace (or race shape) figures, etc. If whoever produced them did not have a private, well-heeled, and discreet audience, it would be difficult to imagine that they could have remained under the radar for any significant length of time. • From what database was the veterinary information in the custom PPs sourced? Given the information that has surfaced, it appears highly likely that The Jockey Club's InCompass database was the source. There are several supporting reasons to arrive at that conclusion. Thanks to @DougieSal, a former Racing Secretary who has provided some useful insights into related questions, we know that there is a clue in the PPs themselves. Note that there are two associated dates listed with the injection notations. The first, on the far left, is presumably the date of the treatment, and placement of the horse on a "vet's list" and the second is denoted by the phrase "off date". The latter is a references to the date on which the horse was taken "off" of a vet's list, and therefore became eligible to race again. The above referenced Doug Salvatore revealed an important insight, which is that those who work in racing offices not only have access to the InCompass database, but when checking eligibility, they are apparently able to see the reason(s) why horses were placed on the vet's lists. I strongly suspect that racing office employees are able to view that information for all horses at all racetracks, as, among other possible reasons, they would need to check the data on incoming shippers. Doug produced a useful video breakdown of the PPs that can be accessed through this link: x.com/DougieSal/status/20664… Lisa Lazarus, the CEO of HISA, commented on the issue this week. She was quoted in TDN as saying: "the screenshots of PPs circulating online could not have come from the HISA Portal because some of the information is different from what is in the HISA Portal." That isn't fully compelling, but she did elaborate on the @Steve_Byk Tuesday podcast (available through his archive). She pointed out that the InCompass system, which has been in place since well before the creation of HISA, includes basic veterinary inputs, while HISA's database includes much more granular detail. She also made the important distinction that the HISA records are accessible only to a very narrow group of authorized people, including the vets, owners and trainers associated with individual horses. Presumably regulatory vets do have access to all of the horses in the database, but it is safe to assume that access is vastly more restrictive than on the InCompass database. I would argue that it is highly likely that the InCompass database is the source of the subject information, because the (limited) published information corresponds closely to what is available on that system, and the database is much easier to access than the HISA database. • Who sourced, or leaked the veterinary information that was used in the custom PPs? This is the most difficult question to answer, not least of which because those who may be currently investigating won't be providing any clues. Given the tiny sample (two sets from NY-based horses), we don't even know with certainty that the (custom) PPs included information on all horses racing in the U.S. But if it were limited to a single racetrack or circuit, it would obviously be of limited value, and if, as suggested above, the InCompass system is not compartmentalized (i.e. the full database is available to any "authorized" user, no matter where they are located), then it would make no sense to limit the scope of the potentially valuable information that was being skimmed. Even if we were to assume that the information came from InCompass, and that it was being provided to a CAW "team", there are questions that make homing in on a leaker difficult. I think it's fair to assume that the veterinary information was gathered en masse, or in computer lingo, "batch processing" was used, which is coincidentally how CAWs place large numbers of wagers efficiently. But even given a relatively efficient process, the data must have been skimmed and updated regularly, and somehow transferred to the database used by whoever constructs the PPs. Perhaps it is not a terribly sophisticated process these days, but superficially it would seem to me that it would still be much easier to accomplish if someone had truly unfettered access, different from that of a low-level racing official working at a desk in a racing office. Those with serious tech chops are welcome to chime in on the topic. Could it have been a remote "hack"? It's possible, I suppose, but that would seem unnecessary if someone who was authorized to access InCompass was able to get the job done without triggering any alarms. One clue that a reader might be able to provide is whether the type of (embedded) custom PPs are associated with any particular CAW team. In other words, setting aside the vet info, does anyone recognize the basic style of those PPs? And if so, where have you seen them previously? • Solutions Moving Forward While I am entirely sympathetic to retail customers (i.e. bettors) who believe that such information is valuable, and should be available to all, I don't think that it's realistic to imagine that it might happen. Why? Because those with the greatest wealth and power in the industry, particularly major breeding farms, would be fiercely opposed to such disclosures. They want their valuable stallion prospects to appear as untainted as possible, and any stain, such as a history of joint injections, could adversely affect the bottom-line. The good news, however, is that there does appear to be a fairly straightforward solution to the problem of CAWs (or anyone else) gaining privileged access to this type of data, at least through the InCompass system. I have no idea why anyone might have thought that it was originally a good idea to reveal specific vet treatment info to racing office personnel. After all, the only crucial bit of information is whether a given horse is eligible to race or not, and in the context of a vet's list, the only thing that a racing official should need to know is whether the horse is on or off the list. Would it be difficult for The Jockey Club to separate the veterinary treatment details from simple on/off list data that could be viewed by racing office personnel? I don't see why it should be, nor am I aware of any compelling reason why those in racing offices might have any need to see treatment details. Of course closing a possible InCompass loophole wouldn't insure that similar leaks could not occur, but at the very least it would reduce the likelihood, and significantly reduce the field of possible suspects in the case of any future leaks. • Lingering Questions We've heard from HISA's CEO on the matter, but when might we hear from the Jockey Club? Is the latter investigating the possibility, or likelihood that InCompass is the source of the vet data leak? Does their system allow them to identify batch downloads of specific data? Are they considering the type of restrictions suggested above, in order to plug a possible leak? Will the person(s) who accessed and leaked the data ultimately be identified and punished? • Final Thoughts Data protection is an increasingly big issue in today's world. Typically, concerns revolve around the unauthorized access of personal details, and this issue includes an (equine) element of that. But it also further irritates an already very sore subject, namely that the racing industry's retail customers have been increasingly abused over recent decades. The most recent abuse has been the explosive growth of CAWs, and advantages given to them (e.g. far lower effective takeout rates). That some of them may have also benefitted from potentially valuable, illicitly attained information, is the very definition of pouring salt on a wound. There are easily identifiable reasons why wagering handle has plummeted >50% over the past 20 years (inflation adjusted) in the U.S. And while neither HISA nor The Jockey Club are designed to focus on wagering issues, the security of their databases is indirectly important to the industry's retail customers, as this issue illustrates. So it would be nice if the latter, whose database appears most likely to be the source of the information, were to respond as if it understands the importance of that underlying connection.

“This stands as an amazing piece of Kentucky Derby history.” Read more: tinyurl.com/vf49e56u