curlin now drug free:zz:

mr jackson how many drug positives has your trainer had?

So...Mr. Jackson, are you saying that...

Attachment 838

A shameful presentation by Jess Jackson. An utter embarassment. And Arthur Hancock was nearly as bad.

Further inaccurate info from the Committee regarding breeding practices.

this chick is clueless...the breeding thing was classic...er.. lets move on...

...Inbreeding???


Attachment 839

The mics are still on!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll bet we hear some good stuff here.

the c span feed was good..van burg..what do we do ? shapirro we chill we go have a drink..lol

oh, keeping the mike on...this is good. Let's see, who is in charge of this industry? Owners, Trainers....ah, what about us gamblers?

I'm sorry, maybe I'm missing something here, but why is it an inherently bad thing that the industry is examined by people who aren't horse racing insiders? It's not like the racing industry has done a great job on the national level of regulating itself.

Or the state level, for that matter.

In theory it is a good thing but a lot of things are good in theory

It just seems a lot of folks are dismissing the hearing as inherently bad for the sport. I don't necessarily think that is the case.

That's easy to say given what appear to be a laundry list of issues facing the game. But let me ask this... I'm all for a central, governing body for racing, but if a "league office" is such a panacea, how did steroids EVER BECOME a problem in Major League Baseball and the National Football League? Here you had powerful league offices and the issue festered for years... According to these hand-picked 'witnesses', a league office would mandate X-Y-Z and problems magically disappear. Didn't happen that way in baseball and football, did it?

Hearings are supposed to be an exchange of info and viewpoints. This list of witnesses HAVE A PRONOUNCED AGENDA and it's been laid out in the first 90 minutes. And there is no counter-balanced opinion available....

"Use the IHA as a crowbar to create a governing body which has as its' sole interest the elimination of drugs of the game"

Now, that could turn out great in theory or it could be a giant clusterphuck.

I think the point is there are many school of thought on what should be done, and several are based on inaccurate information. Chuck's made me understand the drug situation better than anyone, while several people we've heard from are pretty off base. This is a complicated issue and having people express their views (which may be wrong) leading the governments inquiry takes this whole attempt off track.

Having said that, the idea is good and the weight of the government weighing in may get some good things moving forward.

Spyder

I suppose you think that a one sided view of people pretty much bashing the sport is a good thing? This is an entirely one sided hearing with many misconceptions and untruths and generalizations being brought up as facts. There is no one there to dispute them because this 'witness' list is a loaded deck. Dont you think a racetrack vet or trainer that is still relevant would be a good guest? This is like a panel discussing politics and all the witnesses were Republicans.

Marge, I agree with you -- in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory.

- Homer J

As a matter of fact why wasn't Scot Waterman invited since he has been the industry's lead vet involving medication? Because he represents what the industry has done and is doing and we would not want that getting in the way of the obvious agenda here. I have been critical of the RMTC for various reasons but they are way better than what this group of politicians may create.