Originally Posted by Fearless Leader (Post 853397)

I admit it, I used to really like his site, www.paulickreport.com, but I just shake my head and laugh at what is has morphed into, a mouthpiece for the radical right faction that has appeared in recent months. It has become a forum for those folks living in an ivory tower who want the American Thoroughbred Racing Industry transformed back into an early twentieth century version of "The Sport Of Kings" , or wish to mimic racing in Europe.

Paulick has given free rein to the likes of Barry Irwin who bizzarely and hypocritically has been espousing and endorsing his version of a utopian racing society where only graded stakes caliber, medication free horses at major tracks would be allowed to race. The guy insists that Lasix is the cause of all evil in the game, the reason horses break down, and the reason certain stables win with a seemingly impossible frequency.

Anyone that dares to question the veracity of any of Irwin and his sychophants, refutes any of their ridiculous arguments with facts, or points out their hypocrisy, has their comments removed or is banned outright by Paulick. I myself have had comments removed and have a friend who was banned from the site for speaking the truth.

Paulick's site was seemingly about gravitas. Lately it has been exposed as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the radical right agenda, set only on destroying thoroughbred racing as a viable business. It almost makes one wonder if his site is fully funded by The Jockey Club and Team Valor, considering the way he panders to their nonsensical agenda.

Racing in North America is not like racing in other parts of the world, it is much better, and as such, shouldn't try to emmulate something beneath itself just to please a select few with a gilded view of utopia.

Instead of allowing people that have actual first hand knowledge to address a topic, much like some of those clown racing commisioners in Kentucky that tried to silence Dr. Northrup and Dale Romans yesterday, Paulick would rather genuflect before the Lords of the Jockey Club than honor the tenets of his profession; objectivity and free speech.

Kudos should be given to Steve Byk, who unlike Ray Paulick believes an objective, fair and balanced discussion without censorship is the proper approach.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 853407)

I don't know anything about Paulick or his site so I can't comment on that. But here is what I don't understand. With regard to this issue, I see the same thing that I see in politics. People have a need to vilify people with opposing views. There is no need to vilify people and assume they have some type of negative motives or intentions

I have listened to arguments on both sides of this issue. I think both sides make good arguments. This is not a case where you have only stupid and uneducated people on one side and smart people on the other side. There are plenty of smart and respected people on both sides. Both sides have good intentions.

I think if you had an unbiased jury listen to the testimony from experts on both sides of this issue, I think you would end up with a hung jury. I think there are credible, expert witnesses on both sides that make extremely compelling arguments in favor of and against the use of lasix.

Some of you guys act like this is some type of slam-dunk case where people would have to be out of their minds to disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 853434)

To the contrary I believe the anti-lasix/medication people have brought virtually no valid arguments to the table other than rhetoric and innuendo. In fact I believe if you brought this case to an unbiased jury that it would be great because the facts would be laid out and the myths and bs would be exposed.

What gets me is the tactics that the anti-lasix people use and lengths that they will go to in an attempt to discredit anyone who doesnt agree with them. For example Dr Northup is attacked because suppposedly he has a conflict of interest in seeing lasix use continue because of monetary gain for his practice. Of course anyone with a clue understands that vets will make far more money in a non-lasix situation. So the argument they make is not only insulting (that they dont believe his opinion couldnt be swayed by profits) but absolutely wrong. And yet they wont even admit that vets will do far better w/o raceday lasix. This is not soley my opinion it is the opinion of every vet that I have spoken to on the issue. Most hate giving lasix because it takes up a lot of time in the late morning that could be used doing other work. Not to mention they don't make much money giving $20 lasix shots.

As a PR move there is little to no evidence that a lasix ban will have any impact. if the steroids ban is used as an indicator there will be zero bounce from this move and it is likely that it will be largely ignored by the vaunted general public.

I haven't the faintest idea why 99% of the industry gives a damn about what other countries supposedly think of us? I honestly dont believe that most people in Europe care what we do over here and I dont know too many people here that really care what they do.

What other reasons are there? I think that is very ironic that Jack Van Berg is the poster child for non mendcation trainers when it was his horse Alysheba who was the breaking point for NY to adopt lasix. Wonder if his feelings would have been different if he trained the same horse now...

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 853434)

To the contrary I believe the anti-lasix/medication people have brought virtually no valid arguments to the table other than rhetoric and innuendo. In fact I believe if you brought this case to an unbiased jury that it would be great because the facts would be laid out and the myths and bs would be exposed.

What gets me is the tactics that the anti-lasix people use and lengths that they will go to in an attempt to discredit anyone who doesnt agree with them. For example Dr Northup is attacked because suppposedly he has a conflict of interest in seeing lasix use continue because of monetary gain for his practice. Of course anyone with a clue understands that vets will make far more money in a non-lasix situation. So the argument they make is not only insulting (that they dont believe his opinion couldnt be swayed by profits) but absolutely wrong. And yet they wont even admit that vets will do far better w/o raceday lasix. This is not soley my opinion it is the opinion of every vet that I have spoken to on the issue. Most hate giving lasix because it takes up a lot of time in the late morning that could be used doing other work. Not to mention they don't make much money giving $20 lasix shots.

As a PR move there is little to no evidence that a lasix ban will have any impact. if the steroids ban is used as an indicator there will be zero bounce from this move and it is likely that it will be largely ignored by the vaunted general public.

I haven't the faintest idea why 99% of the industry gives a damn about what other countries supposedly think of us? I honestly dont believe that most people in Europe care what we do over here and I dont know too many people here that really care what they do.

What other reasons are there? I think that is very ironic that Jack Van Berg is the poster child for non mendcation trainers when it was his horse Alysheba who was the breaking point for NY to adopt lasix. Wonder if his feelings would have been different if he trained the same horse now...

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 853436)

So what do you think the motives are of Jack Van Berg, Barry Irwin, Ray Paulick and people like that?

Originally Posted by Fearless Leader (Post 853397)

Racing in North America is not like racing in other parts of the world, it is much better, and as such, shouldn't try to emmulate something beneath itself just to please a select few with a gilded view of utopia.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 853436)

So what do you think the motives are of Jack Van Berg, Barry Irwin, Ray Paulick and people like that?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 853478)

Van Berg comes off as a bitter old man who blames his lack of success on the track on everything but his own failure to adapt to changing times. Irwin's goals are almost assuredly purely profit motivated and Paulick's insistence that vets are motivated by profits to back lasix shows a distinct lack of understanding of the issue. Like most things in this business (and a really distinct reason why it is in the situation it is in) is that people dont educate themselves, dont think critically about situations and are far too willing to believe something that fits the model of what they want it to be. We ignored/abused bettors till enough of them left that finally something had to be done to address the situation (though we have a long way to go in that area). We have ignored/abused owners till enough of them have left that the foal crop is at record low levels and tracks that give away ridiclous amounts of purse money have empty stalls and short fields. We have ignored the fate of horses until modern media has exposed the industry as having a woeful record in that regard.

Where have all these industry leaders been? The same people who are acting indignant about medication are the ones that have driven this ship to the brink of disaster. They complain about medication yet so many use trainers that use the vet the most and in some cases are serial violators. Do as I say, not as I do.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 853612)

As a guy who leans right of center (on the politics/society board), I disagree with the assertion that right leaning means against lasix or vice versa.

I would think the opposite - that the trainers have good reasons for using medication like lasix or they wouldn't go through the time, trouble and expense.

Originally Posted by ateamstupid (Post 853614)

I laughed.

Originally Posted by Sightseek (Post 853702)

I love seeing comments by certain individuals in the industry who claim this is the right thing to do by the horse, yet they continue to breed their 20+ year old mares despite their inability to comfortably walk about the pasture.

Originally Posted by Sightseek (Post 853702)

I love seeing comments by certain individuals in the industry who claim this is the right thing to do by the horse, yet they continue to breed their 20+ year old mares despite their inability to comfortably walk about the pasture.

Originally Posted by Left Bank (Post 853795)

I have also had comments removed on the Paulick site,and got several warnings in the past. You are pretty much not allowed to disagree over there. I personally believe the site has turned in to a front for PETA. If it were up to most of the people who frequent the Paulick site,racing would be banned.

Originally Posted by joeydb (Post 853797)

That's an interesting observation. PETA is probably the farthest thing from a right wing organization.

Suffice it to say, Paulick does apparently have a bias (whatever the origin of that bias may be - not necessarily political), and I guess that has an effect on the content on the site, including comments.

Like anything else in a market economy - if it's not to your liking, go elsewhere. Equidaily is a good site.