PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 16, 2013
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2013 - Requires: (1) there to be an independent anti-doping organization with responsibility for ensuring the integrity and safety of horse races that are the subject of interstate off-track wagers, and (2) the independent anti-doping organization designated pursuant to the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006 to serve as such organization.
Sets forth as the duties of such organization: (1) developing, publishing, and maintaining rules regarding substances, methods, and treatments that may and may not be administered to a horse participating in such a race; (2) implementing programing relating to anti-doping education, research, testing, and adjudication to prevent any horse participating in such a race from racing under the effect of any prohibited substance, method, or treatment; and (3) excluding from participation in any such race any person who is determined to have violated such a rule or who is subject to a suspension from horse racing activities by any state racing commission.
Prescribes conditions under which such organization may: (1) suspend the period a person is excluded from participation; and (2) permit the use of furosemide by a horse participating in such a race during the two-year period following enactment of this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits a host racing association to conduct a horse race that is the subject of an interstate off-track wager, and permits an interstate off-track wager to be accepted by an off-track betting system, only if consent is obtained from such organization. Requires such organization to ensure that all costs incurred in carrying its duties are defrayed pursuant to agreements for such consent.
People & committees
Sen. Udall, Tom [D-NM] · D–NM
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.973 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 S.973 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 S.973 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 S.973 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.