Imagine a major player in the horse racing industry being accused of freeloading, potentially risking its ability to host races altogether. That’s the dramatic situation unfolding between the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) Authority and Churchill Downs Incorporated (CDI), the powerhouse behind iconic tracks like Churchill Downs in Louisville. But here’s where it gets controversial: HISA claims CDI has failed to pay millions in assessment fees for 2025—and even disputes payments for 2023 and 2024—while still benefiting from HISA’s safety and regulatory services. If CDI doesn’t settle up, HISA threatens to shut down racing at its tracks, starting with the very next scheduled race day. And this is the part most people miss: CDI argues HISA’s fee collection methods are illegal, sparking a heated legal battle that could reshape how regulatory fees are enforced in the industry.
On Wednesday, HISA formally summoned CDI to a March 11 hearing before a panel of its board members, demanding payment of $2,408,501 in allegedly overdue 2025 fees, plus $93,998 in interest. The notice, served to CDI’s executive director of racing, Gary Palmisano Jr., warns that for every day payment is delayed, CDI’s tracks—including Turfway Park, Ellis Park, and Presque Isle Downs—will be barred from hosting races. TDN reached out to Palmisano for comment but received no response before publication.
At the heart of the dispute is CDI’s refusal to pay HISA assessments for 2025, which HISA claims violates federal law and its own rules. HISA accuses CDI of ‘freeloading’ by enjoying services like drug testing, track inspections, and safety technology without contributing financially. But CDI counters that HISA’s fee methodology is unlawful and that disputes should be settled in federal court, not by HISA itself. This clash raises a thought-provoking question: Who should have the final say in fee disputes—a regulatory body or the courts?
The feud extends beyond 2025. HISA alleges CDI underpaid by $1,708,475 for 2023 and 2024, using its own assessment formula based solely on racing starts rather than HISA’s original methodology. That dispute is currently tied up in federal court, with CDI arguing HISA overstepped its authority by threatening to halt races over unpaid fees. CDI’s lawsuit claims HISA’s actions violate due process and constitutional principles, asserting that private entities like HISA shouldn’t act as judge, jury, and collector in fee disputes.
Interestingly, HISA’s latest hearing notice takes a pragmatic approach, seeking payment based on CDI’s own proposed formula for 2025. However, HISA reserves the right to pursue additional payments if the court upholds its original methodology. This move underscores the complexity of the issue: even if CDI wins in court, it may still owe significant fees under its own calculations.
As the March 11 hearing approaches, chaired by Joe De Francis with Bill Thomason and Terri Mazur on the panel, CDI has until February 27 to file objections. HISA’s enforcement counsel can respond by March 6. The outcome could set a precedent for how regulatory bodies enforce fee collections and how industry giants like CDI navigate compliance—or resistance.
Here’s the burning question: Is CDI rightfully challenging an overreaching regulatory body, or is it dodging its financial responsibilities while reaping the benefits? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below. This showdown isn’t just about money—it’s about power, accountability, and the future of horse racing regulation.
