Chuck offers rational response to invitation for Federal intervention

[paulo537]

I read the article and while I thought it was good, I don't share the same level of enthusiasm as others. I do agree the problem is a lack of consistent medication policy across the sport but I would ask these questions:

1. How much longer should fans and gamblers be asked to wait until the sport starts to manage the issue itself?

2. What makes US horse racing so very different than racing in other countries with much stricter medication rules?

3. Why don't we have penalties on owners for medication violations? If trainers are held strictly liable, why not owners?

I also found the paragraph where he asked why "these well-heeled people don't ... just prove the theory yourself without dragging the rest of the racing industry down with you?" to be rather odd.

4. Who are these people? And, why should anyone who doesn't want to invest in the negative expectation business of horse ownership be expected to prove anything to anyone?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by paulo537

I read the article and while I thought it was good, I don't share the same level of enthusiasm as others. I do agree the problem is a lack of consistent medication policy across the sport but I would ask these questions:

1. How much longer should fans and gamblers be asked to wait until the sport starts to manage the issue itself?

2. What makes US horse racing so very different than racing in other countries with much stricter medication rules?

3. Why don't we have penalties on owners for medication violations? If trainers are held strictly liable, why not owners?

I also found the paragraph where he asked why "these well-heeled people don't ... just prove the theory yourself without dragging the rest of the racing industry down with you?" to be rather odd.

4. Who are these people? And, why should anyone who doesn't want to invest in the negative expectation business of horse ownership be expected to prove anything to anyone?

1. What issue are you referring to? Be more specific
2. Most countries don't have much stricter rules other than Lasix. tht is simply a myth. You don't think there is much difference between European turf rcing and American dirt racing?
3. We have few enough owners as it is though perhaps suspending all of a trainers horses throughout a trainers suspension would give owners pause to use guys who regularly get days.
4. Get up to speed on the issue and ask again. Many of the people pushing this crap bill are breeders who refuse to take any responsibility for the supposed weakening of the breed despite the fact it is they who produce the horses. Like I said if American horses are so weak then why not take advantage of this a create a better breed using foreign breeding stock?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

1. What issue are you referring to? Be more specific
2. Most countries don't have much stricter rules other than Lasix. tht is simply a myth. You don't think there is much difference between European turf rcing and American dirt racing?
3. We have few enough owners as it is though perhaps suspending all of a trainers horses throughout a trainers suspension would give owners pause to use guys who regularly get days.
4. Get up to speed on the issue and ask again. Many of the people pushing this crap bill are breeders who refuse to take any responsibility for the supposed weakening of the breed despite the fact it is they who produce the horses. Like I said if American horses are so weak then why not take advantage of this a create a better breed using foreign breeding stock?

Great article. I always had you pegged as a very smart guy although our opinions often differ.

As to #3. Maybe the economic model is broken... Prices at auctions are absurd when compared to average earnings (And IMHO rigged). They are selling a dream to those with huge egos trying to impress. Trainer costs also are way too high. Smart people aren't going to get involved in a game in which 95% of them are going to lose money. The only people involved are the obscenely rich marks with the huge egos and those of us thinking they can beat the odds. Which nearly all won't. Also suspension of the horse for a extended period would put pressure on the owners to pressure the trainers to be clean else lose the horses. How many owners cry out against trainers cheating but use the same (SS for one).

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

1. What issue are you referring to? Be more specific
2. Most countries don't have much stricter rules other than Lasix. tht is simply a myth. You don't think there is much difference between European turf rcing and American dirt racing?
3. We have few enough owners as it is though perhaps suspending all of a trainers horses throughout a trainers suspension would give owners pause to use guys who regularly get days.
4. Get up to speed on the issue and ask again. Many of the people pushing this crap bill are breeders who refuse to take any responsibility for the supposed weakening of the breed despite the fact it is they who produce the horses. Like I said if American horses are so weak then why not take advantage of this a create a better breed using foreign breeding stock?

I took so long with my response I didn't see yours.

I think the reason they don't use foreign breeding stock is cause they wouldn't be able to compete with the horses with flashy pedigrees

that and foreign horses are slow for the most part

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by paulo537

I read the article and while I thought it was good, I don't share the same level of enthusiasm as others. I do agree the problem is a lack of consistent medication policy across the sport but I would ask these questions:

1. How much longer should fans and gamblers be asked to wait until the sport starts to manage the issue itself?

I'm not convinced that gamblers have a problem with medication rules. If they think someone is cheating they will just bet them. Fans... the only fans I know are gamblers.

Originally Posted by paulo537

2. What makes US horse racing so very different than racing in other countries with much stricter medication rules?

The racing in other countries is different. They don't really ask the horses for much run until the stretch. The horses are bred to run long not fast?

Originally Posted by paulo537

3. Why don't we have penalties on owners for medication violations? If trainers are held strictly liable, why not owners?

Outside of Michael Gill, I can't think of many owners having much to do with the daily care, medication - etc of the horse. if you take away the purse money from horses that test positive than you punish owner's pocket book. What do you want to do? Ban all of the owners. What if there are 50 owners in a partnership? Have the state take ownership?

Originally Posted by paulo537

I also found the paragraph where he asked why "these well-heeled people don't ... just prove the theory yourself without dragging the rest of the racing industry down with you?" to be rather odd.


4. Who are these people? And, why should anyone who doesn't want to invest in the negative expectation business of horse ownership be expected to prove anything to anyone?

imagine John Kerry actually paying higher taxes instead of dodging them. While he blames the system for allowing people to keep more of their compensation.

Owners that complain about the drug rules then take full advantage of them.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by paulo537

I read the article and while I thought it was good, I don't share the same level of enthusiasm as others. I do agree the problem is a lack of consistent medication policy across the sport but I would ask these questions:

1. How much longer should fans and gamblers be asked to wait until the sport starts to manage the issue itself?

2. What makes US horse racing so very different than racing in other countries with much stricter medication rules?

3. Why don't we have penalties on owners for medication violations? If trainers are held strictly liable, why not owners?

I also found the paragraph where he asked why "these well-heeled people don't ... just prove the theory yourself without dragging the rest of the racing industry down with you?" to be rather odd.

4. Who are these people? And, why should anyone who doesn't want to invest in the negative expectation business of horse ownership be expected to prove anything to anyone?

#1. The sport has been 'managing itself' and if you're talking about medication issues, there's been more progress in the last 5 years than in the prior 30 in terms of model rule adoption and testing. See the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium website for details as opposed to taking the word of people who have no idea of what actually is happening on these fronts.

#2 The differences between US and Intl racing are so vast and complete that it isn't even possible to fully explain. Let's just leave it at dirt v. grass; year round v. 6-7 months seasons.

#3/#4 The 'rather odd' portion that you seem confused by relates to the fact that the breeders signing on for Federal involvement are most singularly responsible for any alleged 'weakening of the breed' through their own selection processes and the promolgation of phony graded stakes via their control of the American Graded Stakes Committee (Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Asdsociation).

And further to your Seinfeld-esque 'who are these people', they're the ones who ARE ALREADY invested in the business as referenced above, looking to shirk their own responsibility in these matters on to the training community. (Of course the training community has only been operating at THEIR behest the whole time.) The core issue here is an at hand opportunity of the owner-breeder-track management overseers to emasculate the training community so they can forward their agenda of foisting trainer power in the division of handle.