And that makes sense to me, Steve, that they would use that number. I suppose that in a case like this there is no such thing as "overreacting."
I've even seen posters on here take the opinion that this should just blow over, and the racing industry doesn't need to "overreact." Again...that's just not a credible way of dealing with crisis communication. And whether people believe PETA is full of it or not, this is a crisis communication situation.
Where is NTRA on this disputing the figures in NYT? I can only hope that someone, anyone from the racing industry who is credible will be interviewed for this piece. If there's no response with facts and figures, then the sport has no one but it's own self to blame.
Not to rehash the whole Asmussen thread, but the troubling thing to me about the response is this long period of silence before one interview, and who knows after that. It smacks of lawyers making decisions on how to communicate and when.
There must be some voice saying, "Yes, horses are given Lasix....no, they don't "need it" but it is a performance enhancer...and here's what we do to ensure the horses are healthy and not injured."
There is far too much of the age-old fear that responding to PETA's criticism somehow lends it credibility. Sorry to say...it IS credible until someone refutes it.
If the majority of horseplayers believe (and I don't know this, I'm just speaking hypothetically) that this should just be ignored because "you can't win" against the perception of the public....well then we'll get the game we deserve.
|