Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Though it is my opinion that the states wont give up control of the regulations, that is in no way an endorsement of any states rules, regulations, regulators or vets. I served on a medication commitee that met with the KY horse racing authority in an attempt to draft reasonable and enforceable rules concerning medications,withdrawls, thresholds, shockwave, etc. We met 4 times with some enlightenment on both sides. However this whole event was a charade on the states part to say that they had met with us (horsemen) and we approved what they were doing.
|
Thanks for the info, Cannon. Excellent points all around.
I may have misunderstood my trainer about the Mep - I'll have to go back and have the conversation again to make sure I understood correctly.
I understand all of your points, especially the ones about a lot of the changes that need to be made being cost prohibitive. And yet, I can't help but wonder if for states like Maryland, where we're playing on an uneven field because we don't have slots, if maybe the horsemen could go to the state and ask for funding for new positions for people to oversee a more intensified regulation of the administration of meds to the horses. More oversight and scrutiny of how meds are used could potentially be a selling point by the MD tracks to attract more bettors to the MD product.
Would horseplayers be attracted to playing MD tracks if they knew there was less of a chance of misuse of meds here? If so, it could potentially lead to larger pools, which in turn would fund larger purses, etc......
Or is that simply a pipedream?