"Certified safe"
 

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic.../1037/SPORTS08

I know this topic has been worked over in other threads, but...

"The National Thoroughbred Racing Association's Safety and Integrity Alliance announced yesterday that the track -- where Eight Belles suffered a fatal breakdown after her second-place Kentucky Derby finish last year -- received an unconditional two-year accreditation."

While there are nice initiatives in this Alliance, what happens when the first horse is critically injured in competition at CD this spring? Does CD lose the blue ribbon of safety? This program is guaranteed to be ridiculed as a failure the minute there is a serious equine or human accident/incident.

By terming the accreditation as it has, it enables anti-racing forces upon fatal injury #1 to be able to say "See... these butchers simply cannot prevent the abuse of the horses."

Instead of saying "safe" as if it can be assured, say "accredited" as having met all criteria necessary for the minimization of human and equine health risk. Something like that... But as it is being marketed now? Guaranteed to fail because there will be catastrophic injury on track, and nothing will stop that.

That blurb actually made it into the St. Pete Times this morning. We can't get a hint of horse racing coverage, but this press release makes it into my morning paper.

Bigs, I think that's good - that shows how the paper perceives the general publics interest in this. The public knowing about TB-industry-driven safety initiatives is a good thing - no?

I don't know if Churchill is going to advertise as "Certified Safe" or not (I agree that saying "certified safe" could be misleading), but if they quote what the accreditation letter says, sounds like a real good thing to me. All tracks should have all that.

I don't see how anybody but the most cynical PETA geeks would jump back out of the woodwork, at the first breakdown by having this ( think there is guaranteed failure)

Should the alliance rescind it, not do it? Should Churchill not advertise it? No, IMO it's great they are doing it! Inform the public of what the TB industry does do for safety, proactively, every day, every race.



"The accreditation letter from Mike Ziegler, the alliance's executive director, said Churchill met or exceeded all safety standards, including post-race veterinary inspections through the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission veterinarians and its padded starting gate.

The letter also praised Churchill's internal "Safety from Start to Finish" program, which goes beyond the alliance standards, citing increased post-race drug testing and safety mats in saddling stalls.

Churchill is free to use the certification in advertising and communications, Ziegler said."

Sort of.

When I am reading a two or three line blurb in my local paper in April of '09, I don't want Eight Belles bashed over my head again. This particular paper has a "columnist" that rails against horse racing any chance he gets, he didn't need Eight Belles brought back to the forefront of his consciousness. I can feel the anti-horse racing comments coming.

I'm fine with it. Anything to make track surfaces safer while keeping the dirt (I'm not really sure this certification does, but what the heck).

Bigs I believe you are speaking ot Tom Jones. My wife actually called the number they list in the Times. He picked up and she bitched him out for while. Said not to write about s--t you know nothing about.

Let us know what he says. The Animal Rights movement is slowly, state by state, trying to get increasingly restrictive animal-related legislations passed "in the name of what is good for animals" - but really takes away individual rights, and fails to protect animals in many cases - and guys that sound like him are ripe to fall for it and support it.

Well done :tro: Good for her!

If this were really about safety, there really couldn't be much negative about it.

Love the quote, SB. I'm reading Nostromo right now.

You got it. That dude is a complete anti-horse racing jagoff.

The thing that gets me about the whole dirt/synthetic safety argument is the assumption that the track surface causes all fatal breakdowns. Logic dictates that breakdowns can occur without the track playing any role in it, but we seem to be fed the conclusion that any breakdown must be the cause of the track. Regardless, I have no problem with tracks taking measures to ensure that their dirt surface is safe. It is a much cheaper way of dealing with the race surfaces than the garbage we have been fed about synthetics and while it will not eliminate break downs, keeping tracks vigilant regarding their dirt surfaces surely will reduce breakdowns.

This is so true. I am the first person to want safety for animals, but as a lawyer I have seen the other side of it. Many SPCA's are run by a bunch of total nuts whose idea of safety for animals borders on insanity, many are not paid and many are not qualified. Some are even given guns and badges, the right to make arrests and the ability to ruin people's lives on mere allegations without proper foundation or investigation. The sad part of it is that they destroy their own credibility and IMO they often put animals in more danger as you cannot believe them when they start screaming.

Remind me to buy you and your wife a drink some day.


We all want safety for these horses and riders. But when some sports writing novice gets the beat for covering racing, I think he/she owes it to his/her readers to let it be known he or she is learning more as it goes along.

Personally, I get a nice kick out of reading articles by sincere nubies struggling to latch on to the legacy of this sport in their writing.

We've got a racing writer out here who freely disclosed he just sort of fell into horse racing stuff and writing about a decade ago. He learned fast though, and I usually like his stuff.

Any writer who is faking....and learning on the job without outstanding research...or disclosure.....needs to be sent back to the classifieds department.