2021 Colorado Code
Title 44 - Revenue - Regulation of Activities
Article 32 - Racing
Part 5 - Licensing and Registration
§ 44-32-501. Regulation of Race Meets and Racing-Related Businesses

1. 1. The commission shall license and regulate all race meets with pari-mutuel wagering held in this state at which horses participate, and shall cause the places where the race meets are held to be visited and inspected at least once a year by its members or employees, and shall require all places to be constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the laws of this state and the rules of the commission.
   2. The commission shall license and regulate all kennels and stables housing racing animals both in connection with a race meet and to protect the general health and welfare of horses. The commission shall cause the kennels and stables to be visited and inspected at least once a year by its members or employees and shall require all such places to be constructed, maintained, and operated in accordance with the laws of this state and the rules of the commission.

2. 1. 1. The commission shall, at its own expense, regulate the operations of pari-mutuel machines and equipment, the operations of all money rooms, accounting rooms, and sellers' and cashiers' windows, and the weighing of jockeys. (a) (I)The commission shall, at its own expense, regulate the operations of pari-mutuel machines and equipment, the operations of all money rooms, accounting rooms, and sellers' and cashiers' windows, and the weighing of jockeys.
      2. The commission shall at its own expense take or cause to be taken saliva, urine, blood, hair, or other body fluid samples or biopsy or necropsy specimens from horses selected by the commission or its employees at race meets provided for under this article 32 or when concerns are raised as to a particular animal, including the winner of a race, and shall test and determine the samples or specimens or cause the samples or specimens to be tested and determined.
      3. To protect the health and safety of licensees, racing employees, and the general public, and to ensure the orderly conduct of race meets, the commission may at its own expense take or cause to be taken, for cause or by random selection, saliva, urine, blood, hair, or other body fluid samples from licensees. The commission shall promulgate reasonable rules identifying the license categories subject to testing. The commission shall designate license categories subject to testing based on the nature of the work performed or proximity to dangerous conditions in the sport of horse racing. Samples may be collected by division employees or by certified contractors in connection with race meets. The rules must include a listing of prohibited substances. The commission shall test and determine the samples or specimens, or cause the samples or specimens to be tested, to determine the presence of any prohibited substance that may cause impairment, or mask or dilute the presence of a prohibited substance.
      4. The commission, at its own expense and in addition to other employees, shall employ or contract with competent doctors, accountants, chemists, and other persons necessary to supervise the conduct of race meets and to ascertain that this article 32 and the rules of the commission are strictly complied with. The commission shall also seek innovative and efficient methods of testing humans and horses for prohibited substances to ensure the safety of humans and horses and maintain the integrity of racing. Through its bidding process, the commission shall invite laboratories to include proposals for testing procedures and methods that would maintain or improve the effectiveness of test results and minimize testing cost incurred by the state or the racing industry.

   2. The commission shall establish and require compliance with internal control procedures for licensees, including accounting and reporting procedures.
   3. The commission shall license and regulate persons who manufacture or operate totalizators and shall require all totalizators to be manufactured, maintained, and operated in accordance with the laws of this state and rules of the commission.
   4. The commission may license and regulate persons outside of Colorado who conduct pari-mutuel wagering on simulcast races and who accept wagers from Colorado residents at out-of-state simulcast facilities, and shall require out-of-state simulcast facilities to be maintained and operated in accordance with the laws of this state and rules of the commission. Source market fees imposed on persons licensed under this subsection (2)(d) shall not exceed ten percent of the gross receipts of all pari-mutuel wagering by Colorado residents conducted by the persons at out-of-state simulcast facilities.

3. The commission shall license and regulate all in-state simulcast facilities conducting pari-mutuel wagering and shall require all such in-state simulcast facilities to be maintained and operated in accordance with the laws of this state and rules of the commission.
4. The commission shall, at its own expense, specifically regulate the operation by in-state simulcast facilities of pari-mutuel machines and equipment, the operation of all money and accounting facilities, and the operation of sellers' and cashiers' windows and ensure that the in-state simulcast facility is handling wagering as part of the pari-mutuel system of the appropriate track or simulcast facility and as part of the appropriate pari-mutuel pool, as designated in section 44-32-703. For such purposes, the commission, at its own expense, and in addition to other employees, shall employ the competent personnel necessary to supervise the wagering through in-state simulcast facilities and to ascertain that this article 32 and the rules of the commission are strictly complied with.
5. A licensed track or its additional facility may be used for nonracing events upon advance notice to the commission, subject to the authority of the commission and the division to take all measures reasonably necessary to ensure that the nonracing events do not interfere with the safe and proper conduct of racing or the suitability of the track for racing.

History. Source: L. 2018: (1)(b) and (2)(a) amended,(SB 18-172), ch. 129, p. 851, § 2, effective April 12; entire article added with relocations,(HB 18-1024), ch. 26, p. 295, § 2, effective October 1.

1. This section is similar to former § 12-60-501 as it existed prior to 2018.
2. Subsections (1)(b) and (2)(a) of this section were numbered as § 12-60-501 (1)(b) and (2)(a), respectively, in SB 18-172. Those provisions were harmonized with and relocated to this section as this section appears in HB 18-1024.

Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.

Regardless of any reference to, or discussion of, the subject of racing being what formerly had been a prohibited and unlawful undertaking, the people by their vote adopted a public policy to the effect that racing such as is here involved within this state is legal. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).

It is evident that the people in legalizing racing did so as a means of obtaining revenue for the general fund and the commission has no power or authority to interfere with this clearly intended purpose. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).

This section requires the racing commission to maintain and operate all race tracks in accordance with the laws of the state and the rules of the commission. Colo. Racing Comm'n v. Conner, 30 Colo. App. 72, 490 P.2d 75 (1971).

Under the provisions of subsection (1), the racing commission is charged with the duty of regulating and supervising all race meets involving pari-mutuel wagering that are held in the state of Colo. Colo. Racing Comm'n v. Conner, 30 Colo. App. 72, 490 P.2d 75 (1971).

Rule of the racing commission that requires race tracks to install and maintain, at their own expense, video surveillance systems in pari-mutual wagering areas is authorized by subsection (1)(a). The costs of doing business and complying with licensing rules, which include the cost of equipment necessary for the collection of information used by the commission to regulate, are the race tracks' responsibility under subsection (1)(a). Mile High Greyhound Park v. Racing Comm'n, 12 P.3d 351 (Colo. App. 2000).

Effect of “shall” in subsection (1). The general assembly, by the employment of the word “shall” in connection with the issuance of a license, unquestionably intended that such was to be put beyond the pale of permissive action on the part of the commission in cases where the applicant has met every requirement of the act in connection with its application and does not fall within the specific prohibitions of the act. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).

Concerning the matter of determining that it was not to the best interest of racing or to the public's interest to grant the license applied for, this was definitely beyond the function or authority of the commission, because the matter of declaration of public policy such as was here undertaken is a legislative matter, or sometimes to be found in the expression of the people by their vote on certain issues. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).

It is not for the commission to say what is or is not the needs of certain localities, or what is to the interest of racing. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).

So far as the interest of racing is concerned that is an economic factor which takes care of itself, and the act provides the lines of proximity within which the commission cannot encroach in granting a license. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).

Under the guise of “best interest of racing or the public interest”, the commission would have complete control of all future racing within the state according to its own peculiar notions or grounds. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).

Other duties. Besides the racing commission being charged with the duty to license, regulate, and supervise all race meets, it specifically takes saliva or urine samples from the horses. Harbour v. Colo. State Racing Comm'n, 32 Colo. App. 1, 505 P.2d 22 (1973).

It is the supreme court's duty to give full respect to the findings of a commission and the discretion exercised if the discretion was exercised on matters it could lawfully consider. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).

The appointment of race track stewards and the delegation to them of certain supervisory functions constitutes only an exercise by the racing commission of its right to employ supervisory personnel in accordance with the provisions of this section. Colo. Racing Comm'n v. Conner, 30 Colo. App. 72, 490 P.2d 75 (1971).

The commission, by the exercise of the right to employ race track stewards, does not and cannot totally foreclose itself from discharging its duties of investigating, determining, and redressing possible acts of impropriety occurring in connection with races committed to its jurisdiction, because such duties are quasi-judicial in nature, and must remain ultimately the responsibility of the commission. Colo. Racing Comm'n v. Conner, 30 Colo. App. 72, 490 P.2d 75 (1971).

Where no complaint or objection concerning the running of a race was ever made to the race track stewards by the owner, trainer, or jockey of a horse allegedly fouled, but the owner did request the racing commission to investigate the race after the results of that race were officially announced, the substantive question concerned the propriety of the manner in which a race was run and the propriety of conduct on the part of persons subject to the commission's supervision, because it was the statutory duty of the commission to investigate and resolve such question, and, if necessary, the commission could have proceeded by ordering a hearing solely on its own motion, as it has authorized itself to do in the rules governing horse racing, and since the determination of the question involved was always within the scope of its jurisdiction, any questions concerning the necessity of a prior determination by the stewards or concerning the owner's standing to object became immaterial. Colo. Racing Comm'n v. Conner, 30 Colo. App. 72, 490 P.2d 75 (1971).