Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 462.415 (2026)

Animals prohibited from racing; prohibited acts; rules

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      462.415 Animals prohibited from racing; prohibited acts; rules. (1) An animal may not participate in any race if:

      (a) Less than 24 hours before post time the animal has been administered any drug that is prohibited by the Oregon Racing Commission.

      (b) The animal possesses in its system, on race day, either prior to or at the time of the race any drug detected by any of the testing methods approved by the commission or customarily employed in the testing of urine, saliva, blood or other samples from racing animals.

      (c) The animal’s performance was stimulated, depressed or otherwise affected in any manner by use prior to or during the race of any electrical, mechanical or other device not sanctioned by the commission.

      (d) The animal fails to satisfy all of the conditions of the race prescribed by the racing secretary.

      (2) A person may not enter or allow to be entered in any race any animal if the person knows, or by exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that its participation is prohibited under subsection (1) of this section.

      (3) A trainer, upon entering an animal and allowing it to participate in a race, represents that the animal is in a fit condition and that its participation is not prohibited under subsection (1) of this section. The trainer is responsible for and the absolute insurer of the condition of the animal regardless of the acts of third parties.

      (4) An animal that participates in violation of subsection (1) of this section shall be disqualified and the order of finish revised. If the animal is disqualified, its owner may not share or participate in any purse, earnings, trophies or other emoluments of the race. Any revision in the order of finish after a race has been declared “official” by the stewards does not affect the mutuel payoff to the public.

      (5) Notwithstanding this section or any other section in this chapter, the commission may, by rule, adopt a medication program subject to commission control and supervision that it finds to be in the best interest of racing. Notification to the public that an animal is currently using a drug shall be left to the discretion of the commission.

      (6) Testing of samples from racing animals may be performed only at laboratory facilities certified by the commission as having the capability to provide timely, accurate test results.

      (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the commission, by rule, may adopt tolerances for medication, or residues thereof, that may be detected through tests approved under subsection (6) of this section. [1969 c.356 §4; 1975 c.550 §8; 1977 c.855 §12; 1989 c.357 §3; 1991 c.472 §1; 2007 c.431 §1]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1975–1988 · leading case: Nation v. Oregon Racing Comm'n, 536 P.2d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nation v. Oregon Racing Comm'n, 536 P.2d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “Petitioner appeals from an order of the Oregon Racing Commission finding him in violation of ORS 462.415(1) (b) and 462.420, ① and suspending his license to race greyhounds for 30 days.”
Legg v. Oregon Racing Comm'n, 748 P.2d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “010(7), that the three dogs raced in violation of ORS 462.415(1) (b), because they had a “drug” in their systems, and that the dogs’ trainers violated ORS 462.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 462.415(1) — 2 cases
Nation v. Oregon Racing Comm'n, 536 P.2d 536 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). “Petitioner appeals from an order of the Oregon Racing Commission finding him in violation of ORS 462.415(1) (b) and 462.420, ① and suspending his license to race greyhounds for 30 days.”
Legg v. Oregon Racing Comm'n, 748 P.2d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “010(7), that the three dogs raced in violation of ORS 462.415(1) (b), because they had a “drug” in their systems, and that the dogs’ trainers violated ORS 462.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 462.415(1)(b) — 1 case
Legg v. Oregon Racing Comm'n, 748 P.2d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “010(7), that the three dogs raced in violation of ORS 462.415(1) (b), because they had a “drug” in their systems, and that the dogs’ trainers violated ORS 462.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 462.415(3) — 1 case
Legg v. Oregon Racing Comm'n, 748 P.2d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “010(7), that the three dogs raced in violation of ORS 462.415(1) (b), because they had a “drug” in their systems, and that the dogs’ trainers violated ORS 462.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 462.415(5) — 1 case
Legg v. Oregon Racing Comm'n, 748 P.2d 156 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “010(7), that the three dogs raced in violation of ORS 462.415(1) (b), because they had a “drug” in their systems, and that the dogs’ trainers violated ORS 462.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.