This will effectively kill horse racing
 

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...ance-on-drugs/

It is always comforting that federal legislation can be filed based on the "beliefs" of several friends of the Congressman with zero actual proof or evidence. It is also nice that instead of actually trying to come up with effective rules the people behind this crusade choose to throw out all common sense and "ban" everything despite zero evidence that simple detection of a medication at a microscopic level can have any effect on a horses performance.

Using the theory that a horse should be immune to all physical frailties in order to be able to run (which is pretty much the theory that the agenda people operate under) means that virtually every horse I have ever trained shouldn't have been allowed to run. Making "zero tolerance" a law will effectively make it impossible to fill a card as it will be necessary to withdraw all medications, even innocuous ones that treat chronic issues like stomach ulcers or allergies, a week or more to avoid a ridiculously minute positive. If you asked the NFL to operate under this standard you would have a 2 game season. Owners will rapidly leave the sport simply because this legislation makes a large percentage of the equine population impossibly expensive to train. At some point, maybe sooner than later, the industry will be asked to pay for this legislation and that will most certainly come from a take out increase and possibly from purses.

And in the end like the banning of steroids, all the supposed "good" that will occur, won't, and this will be all for naught.....as usual. This is like banning all human medications because some people abuse Xanex. They just miss the point.

:tro:

No, horse racing will have committed assisted suicide because it has allowed itself to be run as outlaw enterprise that, not incidentally, also is wagered on by the public. If casinos or lotteries tolerated the level of cheating that is routinely accepted in horse racing, there would be an avalanche of indictments and people sitting in the graybar motel. But horse racing cannot even muster the most basic of standards to protect the bettor (and, I might add, the horses).

I hate the Feds more than most, but this is entirely self-inflicted and was wholly predictable (I know since I predicted it 10 years ago).

The issue with this logic is that "cheating" is ill-defined in this sport. Much of what is defined as "cheating" more closely resembles a traffic violation than an actual crime. This misrepresentation surely is self-inflicted as a large portion of the industry has very little clue about the issue and even less interest in trying to educate themselves or the wagering public. The public's opinion has been formed by turf writers who lazily base the lions share of their columns on half truths and rumors and because the industry as a whole does nothing to refute this and in many ways supports these misguided opinions as truth then we arrive at this point.

The idea that horses should be immune to physical issues which modern medicine can address is idiotic yet pretty much exactly what is being proposed and supported. The fact that illegal medications which should be the focus are indeed already banned or illegal seems to be lost.

A micro-overage of clenbuterol is illegal on race day, and should be, but a micro-overage is not "cheating" in the least, as it doesn't, couldn't possible affect a horses performance. Yet it's portrayed - incorrectly - as a cheating horror in the uneducated and undifferentiated racing press and fan base, who don't know what the drugs are or what they can and cannot do.

Some horses need daily medication for their allergies and small routine aches and pains - we can't take that away. They are elite athletes and deserve to be treated as such.

Horse racing isn't unique as far as using drugs, legal or illegal. Abuse exists in all equine disciplines. The FEI and USEF manages to have very tough medication rules, while recognizing therapeutic meds are needed (just went to a rules update conference at Rolex last week in fact).

Such a strict rule would decimate the claiming ranks, IMO. Med regulation can be done better. But this rule isn't it.

I think that is a really unfair assessment of the current state of drug regulation and testing.

Plainly, the proposed regs are an overreaction. But the door to that overraction was opened wide by the laissez faire "regulation" of the issue for decades. Why is Doug O'Neill still in this sport? "Dick" Dutrow? You want to sell me some BS that they are just "helping" the horses?

GTFOOH. Apologists for the status quo have been the greatest detriment to this sport for decades.

I wouldn't have Dutrow still in the sport, so neither BS or apologist here. The current state of medication detection has far outpaced actions of the sport on the results and findings. Jurisdictions differ in how they treat participants. The medication rules hardly need adjustment as much as the sport as a whole needs a cohesiveness rather than the individual and varying fifdoms of present.

Yes, the proposed regs are an overreaction, and terrible for the sport. Not even a viably preferable alternative to "doing nothing".

Section 1. Short Title

The 􏰅Interstate Horseracing Improvement Act of 2011􏰆

Section 2. Findings

This section includes findings that highlight the need to amend the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 to prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Horseracing is a $40 billion industry that generates roughly 400,000 domestic jobs.

While performance enhancing drugs are banned in other sports and in horseracing in other countries, there are no uniform rules in the United States for the use of performance-enhancing drugs in horseracing.

Widespread use of performance enhancing drugs in horseracing adversely affects interstate commerce, creates unfair competition, deceives horse buyers and the wagering public, weakens the breed of the American Thoroughbred, is detrimental to international sales of the American Thoroughbred, and threatens the safety and welfare of horses and jockeys.

In order to protect and further the US horseracing industry, it is necessary to prohibit the use of performance-enhancing drugs in interstate horseracing.

Section 3. Prohibitions on Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs

This section adds new provisions to the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978, which governs off track (􏰅simulcast􏰆) and Internet wagering on horseracing, to ban performance enhancing drugs and require minimum penalties for doping violations.

To provide off track or Internet wagering on races subject to the Interstate Horseracing Act, a host racing association must ban performance enhancing drugs, require testing the winner of each race plus one additional horse, and have minimum penalties for doping violations.

Performance Enhancing Drugs

The term 􏰅performance enhancing drug􏰆 means any substance capable of affecting the performance of a horse at any time by acting on the nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, digestive system, urinary system, reproductive system, musculoskeletal system, blood system, immune system (other than licensed vaccines against infectious
agents), or endocrine system of the horse.

Third Party Testing

Testing for performance enhancing drugs must be carried out by an independent lab that is accredited to ISO standard 17025 and includes testing for performance-enhancing drugs within the scope of its accreditation.

Penalties

Any person who knowingly dopes a horse, or races a horse under the influence of performance enhancing drugs, is subject to civil penalties and suspensions from all activities related to interstate horseracing:

1st Violation 􏰈 $5,000 civil penalty 􏰈 180 day suspension
2nd Violation 􏰈 $20,000 civil penalty 􏰈 1 year suspension
3rd Violation 􏰈 $50,000 civil penalty Permanently banned

A horse that is doped or raced under the influence of a performance enhancing drug is suspended from interstate horseraces:

Multiple violations in different states will count against a person or horse􏰇s total violations.

State Racing Commission Enforcement

State racing commissions may enter into agreements with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce the anti-doping provisions of the Interstate Horseracing Act.

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Enforcement

The FTC can enforce the anti-doping provisions of the Interstate Horseracing Act in states that do not have enforcement agreements with the FTC or in cases where the FTC determines that a state racing commission is not adequately enforcing those anti-doping provisions. The FTC shall treat such violations as unfair and deceptive trade practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Private Right of Action

A person may bring a civil action to ensure compliance with the anti-doping rules of the Interstate Horseracing Act.

1st Violation 􏰈 180 day suspension
2nd Violation 􏰈 1 year suspension
3rd Violation 􏰈 2 year suspension

Horses don't ask for meds to keep them well or pain free. No gastroguard growing wild that they go eat everyday. Your NFL thoughts fail to represent the obvious adults are making decisions for their own behalf. Horses only require such treatment because they are in an environment which is artificial to what they would do naturally. Ultimately, people need to medicate horses responsible but everyones veiw of responsible is different. When dutrow years ago told the press he gives ALL of his horses Winstrol he didnt think he was being iresponsible he really thought it helped them. I never understood why hyperbaric chambers were deemed illegal for use the week of raceday? It's oxygen for g-ds sake? How the heck is that bad fr a horse? because it feels better faster? Anyway my point is comparing humans shooting themselves at halftime of an NFL game is completely differt then making a horse eat 2 butes a day so he can stay fit and train.

If it wasn't Kentucky Derby week, this story would be far more prominent than it is right now...

I would prefer Congress focus instead on banning medications in feed animals, as we're not wagering on that crap; we're eating it and the cruelty experienced by factory farm animals far outweighs cruelty in the racing industry, but the factory farms have a lot more money to buy politicians than the racing industry. And of course, gambling baaaaaaaaaad. The preachers say so.

No, the representative from Kentucky is rolling this out now precisely because it is Derby week. It's similar to the racing-related garbage we see the politicians pull here in New York the week before the Belmont or during Saratoga.

The testing levels are what I was comparing though the thought that anyone but the elite of the elite football players can refuse treatment/medication and keep their job is completely misguided. The difference is that the players who take illegal substances are knowingly and willingly cheating. The vast majority of positives in horse racing are things that are only called "cheating" because some lab detected a legal medication above a completely randomly selected level. Giving a horse Winstrol when Dutrow made the comment was a far different story than a baseball player taking them but as usual no one pointed this out. Winstrol is not crack like some people would have you believe.

So are you saying because the horses "dont ask" for meds that we aren't morally and professionally obligated to treat them for their issues?

Thoroughbreds are not found in the wild so comparisons should take this into consideration. The are not a "natural" breed, they are a selected breed.

Some race horses have breathing issues that clenbutrol would help most race horses arent given that drug because they have professional/medical need. Most race horses are treated with it because it helps make them run faster, hence the moral and professional argument loose merit.

The problem is time curses most problem but time is boring and expensive and trainers dont earn laying up horses. And owners are bored and want to race immediately so drugs make the trainers and owners get together on the same page. Its a happy marriage unless you are the horse of course.

BTW if most of the ridiculous positives have nothing to do with performance why do give a darn about Dutrow getting a license in KY?

Hay oats water

Hay Oats Water

Hay oats Water!

Clembuterol doesnt make horses run faster when you have to stop giving it 4 days before the race. The fact is because of the environment they live in which is dusty, pretty much all horses can benefit from using it without it having any race altering effect.

The idea that time cures all is ridiculous. As I have said many times, no one yet has convinced me yet that thoroughbred horses shouldn't benefit from modern medicine like every other species on the Earth. Virtually no legal medication given to horses harms them if used properly.

Dutrow deserves whatever fate befalls him. He has plenty of other issues outside of medication violations.

Never was, never will be.

No reason not to try!;)

Yeah there is.

Why would you stop using a drug 4 days before? So its ok to work your horse in 58 and its not harmful or irresponsble so who cares if the horse runs 1:10 7 days later on it in a race? Testing for a drug that you use daily because the enionment is dusty is silly.

Of course time doesnt cure all but it certainly used instead of drugs that will get them to the races faster

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...