I agree we need uniform punishments for violations across all jurisdictions. That is what is needed, not a zero tolerance rule that will harm the health and well-being horses we race.

We have allowed therapeutic medications, and we have the means to test levels of those drugs to a degree more infitismally smaller than we practically need.

Let me put it this way: bank tellers, who handle alot of money, not infrequently test trace positives for cocaine due to secondary exposure to the trace amounts on money. Trainers have had cocaine positives from drug-using stable help touching their horses and transferring cocaine.

We know which levels of these drugs are therapeutic (a dose that works) and thus we know the level of those drugs that could be "performance enhancing or altering"; and so we know the ineffective doses, or the levels that are too low to work, thus cannot be performance enhancing or altering.

We have to have a zero tolerance for overages that could be performance enhancing, but we have to not punish ridiculously for trace amounts of non-performance-enhancing levels of drugs given at an approved therapeutic level within a proper doctor-patient-client relationship.

Example: I give a slightly colicky horse a pain injection Monday afternoon. I report the administration and dose to the stewards (file the vet report). The horse is fine. A little gas bubble for an hour or so, pain never comes back. It runs Friday. They find a teeny tiny microdose trace of the painkilling drug.

This should be of no concern because a report was filed before the horse raced.

If the amount of drug found is higher, closer to therapeutic levels (showing administration closer than Monday) of course there should be a punishment.

But zero tolerance is silly here, and harms the horse.

Duh you have to stop giving it to them 4 days or you will come up with positive test....

Next time you feel sick just take a month vacation...

If we take away the horses that can't run without a little bute or NSAID, we'll decimate the claiming ranks and have to euthanize thousands of older horses.

I am all for hay, oats, and water, but you need veterinary care and health maintenance of the race horse, too.

Just take away the meds that make some trainers win at high 30-40 some %.

Not to mention the legislation is basically a joke. The lack of specifics are frightening. I guess the people calling for 50k and 100 k fines aren't familiar with horse racing outside of the KY Derby.

I agree - an entire barn should not necessitate receiving a monthly steroid shot (although the comparison to human steroid use isn't very accurate)

But absolutely, when a skinny nervous claimer comes into a new barn, the horse should be dewormed, started on Gastroguard, and given a steroid shot or two a month apart to get him eating and on a weight-gaining slope.

Detecting the vast variety of internet-available illegal steroids and cocktails and neutriceuticals is an ongoing process, and we have the capability to do it, if we simply fund it well. These drugs are not really all that secret, as they tend to be broadly sold and cross both human and animal worlds.

Not just the claimers, pretty much all classes including stakes horses.

Precisely.

There are already rules that make these illegal and have fairly hash penalties.The problem is the clowns in charge of the sport cant fix that problem because they are in denial, clueless or just dont have the proper funding. So instead of tackling the real problem, they take the easy way out and blame some nebulous "drug problem" and act as though they're stopping the juice guys when they truly are giving them a bigger advantage.

Giving every horse in the barn steroids monthly wasn't the big deal people made it out to be as evidenced by the same guys winning at the same % and some higher since the steroid ban was put into effect.

Yeah it will definitely end up giving them an even bigger advantage if they go through with what is being proposed. Is there really a solution?

OK to train and work on but not ok to run on race day..WHY?

Sick horses need meds sore horses that get injected to block pain or reduce inflammation are completely different.

Who wouldn'r give a horse drugs to cure a sickness?

The most effective way to police the sport is to actually police the sport, not just rely on testing. The problem of course is money as training or retraining real law enforcement officers to monitor the backside is expensive as is having a real security force. The thing is tracks have hired former cops and put them in charge of the security and what we so far have wound up with is more $50 tickets for not having your license displayed or $100 fines for smoking or littering. The illegal drugs (aka the ones that 42% guys use) are getting in the backside and in the horses. Stop that, catch people red handed, give them the boot and your problem is much more manageable.

First, horse racing is a brutal sport. They are a selected breed. They are inferior when it comes to health and soundness, but they are fast. In the US we have taken this selection way too far and patched the animals genetics with meds.

Animals get sick, injured and even die. It is a fact of life. I do think we should medicate where necessary (antibiotics, steroids, etc.) to help the animal. However, if these rules go in effect, then it may require the horse to be absent from the races for some time for the meds to leave his/her system.

In Europe, they race with less meds and it doesn't kill their racing. The bottom line is they breed a sounder animal, race primarily on turf, and at a longer average distance.

In the US, this will be painful for a few years, but eventually it will be fine, maybe even better than fine. I'd like for the US to breed heartier types and eliminate the bleeders and the glass horses from the stock. This may reduce the overall number of horses and bring the industry to the size it should be.

Most trainers probably do their best to play within the rules, but the policing will never be good enough without a black and white rule set. No is no.

I don't have all the answers, but as an owner and bettor, I sure wish the sport were holding itself to a higher standard than today.

I disagree with "patched with meds". Horses are grazing walking herbivores, not runners carrying weight at speed over distance. The very nature of not grazing 1000 acres is what is hardest on their physiology. Standing in a stall 22 hours a day is terrible for their health.

And a slower speed. Speed causes bone and muscle-tendons-ligaments to blow apart, and there isn't much you can do about those physics. You can do some, but not much. There is a point of diminishing return, where the body can't be stronger. And they have different management and training practices, with far less stalling. And turf. Not dirt.

Take the speed out, and those problems disappear by themselves.

I could use some of that Miller time.

Look, I think it's time to make the bettors happy and completely sanitize the sport. Give them full fields every race, no cheating trainers, and no cheating jockeys. Give them full and complete access to the all handicapping information, full disclosure on all vet records for every horse, and only one racetrack to bet on with a simplified wagering menu.

We have just the thing in Maryland - it is called Racetrax. Racetrax is a computer generated game run by the MD Lottery. Clean as a whistle. No late changing odds - you know the payouts even before the race is run. There's little down time as a race is run every few minutes. And I've never even seen a horse DQ'd by a cheating steward.

That should make all the disgruntled bettors satisfied, right?? And with everyone getting the same info on the horses, everyone will be a winner, because we all know the reason we lose bets is because the jockey cheated, or the stewards cheated, or the trainer cheated, or I didn't get info on the meds that horse was given last week, or....... ??

In the end, I'm glad to see Congress is so concerned about the bettors.

The problem is that you are buying into fiction that just isn't true or won't happen.

European racing is completely different than ours and this bill will make the law here far stricter than there. Let's not kid ourselves and think that horses there arent treated with meds as well as they are here. The biggest difference obviously is Lasix and THAT is a completely overblown topic in and of itself.

The "genetics" of racehorses here and in europe are the same. Meds have zero effect on the genetic capability of a horse. While you might make the case that a stallion using meds may get a better chance and breed more mares for a few years the fact is that the vast majority of stallions are failures with few notable exceptions and their genetic capability was there or not there regardless of what they were given. Mares with good/decent pedigrees are going to be bred regardless of whether they bled, ran horrible or were cripple. And a lot of them turn out to be great producers who don't pass on any of their negative traits. Bleeding is not an inheritable trait. There is no "bleeding" gene. The fact is that most incidents of EIPH are caused by outside factors whether it is an infection, reaction to trauma, pain, anxiety or some other issue like hitting the gate or falling down. Bleeding is rarely a primary issue, generally it is a symptom. Now once a horse damages its lungs, bleeding can become a regular occurrence which makes taking away means to control the bleeding seem to be a bad idea.

But hey a lot of people believed the word was flat at one time too...