PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 25, 2017
Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017
This bill establishes the Horseracing Anti-Doping and Medication Control Authority as an independent non-profit corporation with responsibility for developing and administering an anti-doping and medication control program for: (1) Thoroughbred, Quarter, and Standardbred horses that participate in horse races that have a substantial relation to interstate commerce, (2) such horse races, and (3) the personnel engaged in the care, training, or racing of such horses.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all horse racing anti-doping and medication control matters. The Authority and such FTC jurisdiction shall terminate if an interstate compact providing for services consistent with such program is established within five years after the program takes effect.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Authority may enter into agreements with state racing commissions to implement the program within their jurisdictions.
Program elements shall include:
anti-doping and medication control rules,
lists of permitted and prohibited substances and methods,
a prohibition on the administration of any such substance within 24 hours of a horse's next racing start, and
testing and laboratory standards.
The Authority shall:
develop, maintain, and publish such lists;
establish a list of anti-doping and medication control rule violations applicable to either covered horses or persons;
establish standards and the process for laboratory accreditation and sample testing; and
promulgate rules for anti-doping and medication control results management, for the disciplinary process for violation results management, and for imposing sanctions for violations.
The bill sets forth civil enforcement provisions.
Activities under this bill are funded by an assessment placed on state racing commissions based on the calculation of cost per racing starter.
People & committees
Rep. Barr, Andy [R-KY-6] · R–KY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2651 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2651 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2651 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2651 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.