Dec 16, 2020
Michigan Gaming Control Board
Re: Draft Changes to the Horse Racing General Rules – Public Comment
Attn: Wendy Harns
PO Box 30786,
Lansing, Michigan 48909
To Whom It May Concern,
Pursuant to the publication of the draft general rules for horse racing, posted for a public comment
hearing on Dec 16th, please accept the following response and feedback. As key stakeholders, we thank
you for the opportunity to review and provide comment on the proposed rule changes as this process
moves forward and is implemented. Within the proposed rules available for review, we request your
consideration on the following questions and concerns:
Page 10, R431.1047 (4):
The current draft requires a CHO to be certified before being “entitled to receive or distribute and
simulcast purse pool funds or live racing funds”. However, this language doesn’t reference any funds
distributed from the horse racing disbursement account that may have been generated form a race
meeting licensee's third-party facilitator. The MHHA would suggest that this rule also require a CHO to
be certified before being eligible to receive or distribute these funds.
Page 139, R 431.5005 (2):
This rule requires that a race meeting licensee assumes and acknowledges responsibility for all conduct
of third party facilitators. However, during the licensing process earlier this year the MGCB refused to
provide even basic updates to the race meeting licensee on the status of applications. We would submit
that if the MGCB requires a race meeting licensee take responsibility for third party facilitators they
should also be entitled to information on their third-party facilitators from the state regulator. It would
be impractical and unfair for the state regulator to push liability for the actions of third party facilitators
on to race meeting licensees and then also deny them information on their third-party facilitators. We
would suggest the Michigan Gaming Control Board either limit this responsibility for race meeting
licensees or include a provision in the rules that gives the race meeting licensee access to information
from the MGCB related to their licensed third party facilitators.
Request for a new provision governing Historical Horse Racing terminals:
Sec. 17 (1) of the Horseracing Act reads, “The pari-mutuel system of wagering on the results of horse
races as permitted by this act is not unlawful. All forms of pari-mutuel wagering must be conducted
under a race meeting license preapproved by the racing commissioner by rule or written order of the
commissioner.” We believe that the use of historical horse racing terminals fit under the definition of
pari-mutuel system of wagering on the results of horse races. As such we request that the MGCB use
this rule set to build a frame work of rules around this type of gaming. We would ask the MGCB to set a
standard for testing HHR terminals to ensure they are indeed pari-mutuel and ask the regulator include
a process for approving specific machines for use in the rules.
