Kentucky's ongoing attempt to end racing in state proceeds..

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Congress are the last people that should be making medical decisions for doctors and their patients, don't you agree?

No, I do not agree. I totally disagree. The horseracing industry has done a horrible job of policing itself. The fox has not done a good job of guarding the hen-house. They've had the last 20 years to clean up the sport and they won't do it.

I think the doctor/patient argument is a horrible analogy here. In general, doctors usually do what is best for their patients. Doctors work for their patients. In horseracing, the vet does not work for his patient (the horse). The vets works for the owner and trainer, both of whom often do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

If owners and trainers had the best interest of the horse in mind, you wouldn't have the state vet scratching horses the morning of the race. Why does the state vet scratch horses the morning of the race? Because trainers will sometimes attempt to run unsound horses. This proves that some trainers do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

Anyway, you have a sport where hundreds of millions of dollars are being bet. When you have that much money being bet, there needs to be a governing body that insures integrity. With the stock market, they don't police themselves. You have the SEC that does that.

There needs to be someone there to protect the horses and protect the public. In my opinion, the racing industry has proven time and time again that they are incapable of policing themselves. Any time someone wants to make a significant change, the owners and trainers start dragging their feet. I'd rather have the industry take charge of itself but if they're not going to do it, then I have no problem with the government coming in.

[cmorioles]

Lets keep this simple. Pretend horse racing wasn't legal today. Now, imagine somebody proposed it as a gambling venture nationally. They give all the positives, the money and jobs it can generate, etc. At the end of the proposal, they mention, "Oh, by the way, pretty much every horse is going to be injected with a drug so they don't bleed in the lungs before they race." What do you think the chances are racing would be approved?

I put it at right around 0%, but certainly no higher than 0%.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Lets keep this simple. Pretend horse racing wasn't legal today. Now, imagine somebody proposed it as a gambling venture nationally. They give all the positives, the money and jobs it can generate, etc. At the end of the proposal, they mention, "Oh, by the way, pretty much every horse is going to be injected with a drug so they don't bleed in the lungs before they race." What do you think the chances are racing would be approved?

I put it at right around 0%, but certainly no higher than 0%.

That's not true.

Some group of self righteous vets would lobby for it, saying the drug is totally safe, and in fact, everyone and everything should be on it.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

That's not true.

Some group of self righteous vets would lobby for it, saying the drug is totally safe, and in fact, everyone and everything should be on it.

Nicely done! (But still 0% chance it would be legalized under those conditions)

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Nicely done! (But still 0% chance it would be legalized under those conditions)

Legalized? Who said anything about legalized?

After the vet and drug lobbies got after them, it would be mandated!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, I do not agree. I totally disagree. The horseracing industry has done a horrible job of policing itself. The fox has not done a good job of guarding the hen-house. They've had the last 20 years to clean up the sport and they won't do it.

I think the doctor/patient argument is a horrible analogy here. In general, doctors usually do what is best for their patients. Doctors work for their patients. In horseracing, the vet does not work for his patient (the horse). The vets works for the owner and trainer, both of whom often do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

If owners and trainers had the best interest of the horse in mind, you wouldn't have the state vet scratching horses the morning of the race. Why does the state vet scratch horses the morning of the race? Because trainers will sometimes attempt to run unsound horses. This proves that some trainers do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

Anyway, you have a sport where hundreds of millions of dollars are being bet. When you have that much money being bet, there needs to be a governing body that insures integrity. With the stock market, they don't police themselves. You have the SEC that does that.

There needs to be someone there to protect the horses and protect the public. In my opinion, the racing industry has proven time and time again that they are incapable of policing themselves. Any time someone wants to make a significant change, the owners and trainers start dragging their feet. I'd rather have the industry take charge of itself but if they're not going to do it, then I have no problem with the government coming in.

Horse racing doesnt do a good job of policing itself because it doesnt have the authority to police itself.

And horseracing is far less corrupt than the stock market and its major participants

By the way the government has been supposedly protecting the horses and public for a long time and they obviously do such a poor job it has made guys like you forget that little factoid. The difference between a state racing commission and a national racing commission is the latter will just cost more to operate.