A line item on the USTA budget exhibited to the Finance Committee at the recently concluded annual meeting revealed that $15,000 of members’ money was spent to perform Out of Competition testing by the Meadowlands at a lab outside the USA. This is odd to say the least, and is an indication that perhaps we should all be looking a little more closely at the issue of USTA spending and transparency.
On this particular issue, while the Meadowlands claims that track management does foreign testing out of its own pocket, it is USTA members’ money that is being used for that purpose. When further inquiry was made, it was revealed that the cost of the Hong Kong tests amounted to an outrageous $600.00 per test. From what I understand, that is far in excess of drug testing costs charged by USA labs, which range from $90.00 to $150.00 per test. Inasmuch as there are labs in America that are highly competent, one has to wonder why a foreign lab is being used in the first place. More importantly, why is members’ money being used while track management insists that these tests – purportedly being conducted in the interest of a much heralded need for integrity – are already being paid for by the Meadowlands management?
USTA President Langley says that the Board approved the expenditure of USTA funds’ to any track that sought to conduct out of competition testing. Indeed, if such an expenditure was approved by the USTA board, I have since found it difficult to find anyone who remembers such a USTA vote. That said, and assuming that it was duly approved somehow, why didn’t the use of members ' money come with mandatory due process protections for horsemen – such as split sample confirmation testing by an independent USA lab? After all, a portion of that $15,000 given to the Meadowlands for Hong Kong testing, was generated in part from the then accused horsemen's dues and fees. As a membership-elected Director, I sought only to fully understand exactly what was happening with our members’ money and I did not receive an answer I thought satisfactory.
And beyond the issue of transparency on USTA spending itself, there is also the issue of transparency in testing. If there was a split sample and confirmation afforded, then a state commission could conduct an inquiry and let the entire industry know if a rule violation indeed occurred. If someone actually cheated, shouldn't the entire industry be made aware of it and a US commission therefore be put in a position to penalize some one? Or are we to be satisfied with just one man's pronouncement?
On another issue, the USTA has approved (and I supported) the setting aside of up to $120,000 for subsidizing the TV broadcast of major races up to a maximum of $37,000 per track. While the same limit was in place in 2015, it appears that the number was indeed exceeded for two particular events in 2015. One track received $60,000 and another $56,000, overrides of nearly $23,000 and $19,000 respectively. While these events are important, I learned that the USTA agreed to cover any overrides on these events. That is obviously troubling and raises the question of whether the directors are being told one thing at the annual meeting and then learn about subsequent decisions long after they are sent home. At the end of the day, the directors should feel confident that they know who is controlling the expenditures of money and whether any of these expenditures are beyond, or in contravention of, the Board's expressed will. Again, as I can best discern the authority granted was to spend no more than $37,000 per event.
In addition to the above, the USTA is about to raise dues and fees in 2018 – – in anticipation of a near $1,000,000 budget deficit in 5 years or so. That increase will come the year after the Board meets in, of all places, Las Vegas, in 2017. So with that said , what the heck is the USTA doing to justify the expenditure of budget items like $15,000 for the Meadowlands’ Hong Kong drug testing, overrides for TV expenditures or even $250,000 for high-priced social media initiatives with admittedly no metrics to allow the directors to determine their efficacy? Especially on the heels of a dues and fees increase, if one is necessary for projects deemed necessary and fruitful, one can fully support those.
The TV project is “guesstimated” to have reached an estimated 40,000 households out of a US population of 323,000,000, which doesn’t seem worthy of any cost override being absorbed by the USTA or a justification to be part of a dues and fees increase any more than the social media effort can be.
The social media expenditure of an even greater sum has no metric except the main proponent’s full court press with uninformed members, and a structured e mail and letter writing campaign that was coupled with the disgraceful last minute intimidation of directors. On this item, remember that our social media expert told us when we first embarked on this venture that spending money on TV was cost inefficient. However, after the public campaign to make the USTA change its position on TV funding, the expert changed oars and we were told TV was a necessary component to the social media effort. While social media is very important and worth continuing and evaluating, don't we as directors have a responsibility to act as fiduciaries when spending members' money and insure that our social media efforts are worth the expenditure. Are we blindly to follow the presentation and politicking of the party interested in us spending money on social media when there is admittedly no metric to guide us? Is that good economic sense or responsible stewardship of our members’ money? At least the young director from Wisconsin, Gabe Wand, sought to inject some oversight on our social media guru in the future. Many of us saw an increased role in the future for those very capable employees, like Allison Conte to name just one, at the USTA who do much of the work anyway. By the way, horsemen’s’ associations, track social media outlets and members like Ashley Tetrick and Ryan Macedonio also do great jobs in the social media arena with much less media dollars. I am certain that the position I espouse here will be vociferously attacked, but so be it.
In conclusion, the USTA has a responsibility to clearly and transparently demonstrate that our funds are being used well, whether it is a social media campaign, TV overrides, or the arbitrary use of Hong Kong tests.
It seems to me that the USTA may need its stall mucked unless, as some horsemen say, the reality is that USTA actually stands for the United States Track Association.
By Joe Faraldo