06/03/2026
How the New Jersey Racing Commission undermines Horse Racing.
The New Jersey Racing Commission’s (NJRC) recent decision to uphold the 380-day suspension of trainer Per Engblom is, on multiple levels, utterly reprehensible.
Let me start with the Commission’s rejection of findings from the Administrative Law Judge. Per raced Mon Amour, on April 29, 2023. The horse tested positive, after the race, for three prohibited substances, the most harmful being Oxycodone – a central nervous system depressant and pain masker supposedly administered to allow a horse to compete through pain or injury.
All three prohibited drugs were found only in the horse’s urine – no trace was found in the blood system. Subsequent investigation of Per’s training facility, trailers, tack rooms and offices, failed to uncover those or any drugs and/or drug paraphernalia.
Prior to the finding, Per had started horses in 2,330 races. He has started a total of 8,457 horses in races through 2025, with the aforementioned horse being the only horse in his care to have a positive drug test. The presiding judge at the racetrack where the horse tested positive, confirmed Per had “no other positive tests” prior to the race in question and there have been none since. That presiding judge also testified that all three drugs, “were not drugs that had mandatory penalties attached,” but the penalties Per received by the NJRC simply followed guidelines set by the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI).
Dr. Clara Fenger DVM, PhD, DACVIM testified on behalf of Per, “that the drugs in the horse resulted from oral or mucus membrane contact with a human whose hands were contaminated with these drugs after completion of the race.” An Administrative Law Judge found Dr. Fenger’s testimony credible, yet the commission, presenting no conflicting evidence or expert(s) of their own, substituted their own uninformed judgement, stating that Dr. Fenger’s, “conclusion was flawed.” The Commission added their unsupported belief that her testimony was based on, “guesses and conjecture.”
On January 2, 2025, the Administrative Law Judge, affirming Dr. Fenger’s testimony, adds “the substances did not factor into the outcome of the race.” He also found the 380-day suspension “draconian” and extremely severe and subsequently recommended a reduced penalty of ninety days. But the NJRC is not bound by the ALJ’s opinion N.J.A.C 1:1-18.6(b. The NJRC) rejected the ALJ’s opinion. So, what is the point of a horse trainer appealing any NJRC decision. They (the NJRC) are the judge and jury.
The NJRC goes a step further in defense of its harsh penalty and states, “the integrity of racing cannot be assured based on guesses and conjecture, and it does not guard the health of the horse to have these substances in (his) system.” Well now, let us talk about the health of the horse. If the NJRC is so concerned about the health of the horse - how did it allow the horse in question to race the following week – May 6, 2023. If the health and welfare of the horse is apparently compromised, why suspend the trainer? Suspending the trainer does not help a compromised horse.
I have my opinion. It is so much easier for the NJRC to simply ignore their own blood tests and expert testimony and punish the trainer than to devise a means to help the allegedly compromised horse. They (the NJRC) look and feel good about their decision with little to no substantiation of their assertions.
The message to the public is, “See we are protecting you and the horses.” But it is little more than theater and public relations. Everyone feels good doing something, as lazy and inconsequential as it is, to ensure integrity and the animal's welfare, but it is nothing more than palliative fiction. I’d be interested in what the animal welfare groups have to say about suspending the trainer and not the "compromised" horse. I may have to take up that charge.
The NJRC’s pitiful, self-glorifying, and frankly offensive conclusion does not make Per any worse a trainer, any less careful a trainer, any more than dismissing the whole matter would make him a better, more careful trainer. He is one of the best trainers Standardbred racing has ever had. Nothing can change that.
But the Racing Commission actions have consequences. Collateral damage is significant. Per presently trains nearly 90 horses and has 25 employees here in New Jersey. Those horses and those people will go elsewhere when Per is forced to close his operation – a family operation, by the way. He will likely return to Sweden or find another state where he can train.
Per occupies four barns at the New Jersey training Center where his stable is based. That facility will lose revenue from his operation as will the hay producers, feed suppliers, veterinarians, and tack suppliers dependent on Per’s business. Finally, racehorse owners will be forced to find another trainer - likely outside of New Jersey, all of which the NJRC fails to mention in its conclusion(s).
I, along with many others in Standardbred racing, have and continue to work with the New Jersey Legislature to protect and advance Standardbred racing. The NJRC works to undermine all our efforts. It is N.J. that is the ultimate loser as the NJRC sustains its specious ruling. For the good of horse racing, the public and the state, Per’s suspension must be set aside.
Mitchel Skolnick
Bluestone Farms, L.L.C.
