PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 16, 2015
Thoroughbred Horseracing Integrity Act of 2015
Establishes the Thoroughbred Horseracing Anti-Doping Authority as an independent organization with responsibility for developing and administering an anti-doping program for Thoroughbred horses (covered horses), the trainers, owners, veterinarians, and employees of such persons and other personnel who are engaged in the care, training, or racing of such horses (covered persons), and horseraces that involve only Thoroughbreds and that are the subject of interstate off-track wagers (covered horseraces). Grants the Authority exclusive jurisdiction for anti-doping matters over all covered horses, persons, and horseraces, effective January 1, 2017.
Imposes the jurisdiction and authority of the Authority as conditions upon the privilege to accept, receive, or transmit wagers on, and to participate in, covered horseraces. Vests the Authority with the same powers over Thoroughbred horseracing licensees as the state racing commissions have.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Authority to develop and administer the Thoroughbred horseracing anti-doping program, which shall include:
lists of permitted and prohibited substances and methods; a schedule of sanctions for violations;
programs relating to anti-doping research and education;
testing procedures, standards, and protocols for in-competition and out-of-competition testing;
procedures for investigating, charging, and adjudicating violations and for the enforcement of sanctions for violations; and
laboratory standards for accreditation and testing requirements, procedures, and protocols.
Conditions eligibility to participate in covered horseraces on covered persons agreeing that they and their covered horses shall be bound by the provisions of the program.
Directs the Authority to establish: (1) a list of anti-doping rule violations applicable to either horses or covered persons; (2) standards of accreditation for laboratories involved in the testing of samples taken from Thoroughbred horses, the process for achieving and maintaining accreditation, and the standards and protocols for testing of samples; (3) rules for anti-doping results management and the disciplinary process for anti-doping rule violations; and (4) uniform rules imposing sanctions against covered persons and/or covered horses for anti-doping rule violations.
Requires funds for the establishment and administration of the anti-doping program to be paid by the Thoroughbred horseracing industry.
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
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 12, 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.3084 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.3084 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.3084 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.3084 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.