House Subcommittee Hearings

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

To the contrary I believe that the industry has not taken a defensive enough stance. All I saw today were people casting stones at the industry. And I hate to tell you that the Feds will take today as the end all, be all as far as their involvement. That is why the list of 'guests' was so slanted. If you knew nothing about horseracing before this hearing you will have a really dim and one sided view afterwards. Let us not forget that many if not most of our experts arent that knwledgeable about the entire issue outside of their own fifedom's so to expect decided non-experts like congress decide our fate is not an appealing thought. Think NYCOTB on a grand scale.

What are exactly ARE the compelling counter-arguments to today's "one-sided" arguments?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by justindew

What are exactly ARE the compelling counter-arguments to today's "one-sided" arguments?

That racing is hardly doing nothing in many cases. That some of the issues brought up like the ones involving the sales have already been dealt with through regulatory changes and state laws. That there needs to be a whole lot more clarification than to simply say "drugs". That there are customers that wont appreciate paying more for the product despite the pleas of Moss, Van Berg, and Jackson. That this is a far more complex issue because many of the "drugs" that are being talked about are useful medications that would not be an issue in a human sport yet are in ours. That this whole endeavor would cost a tremendous amount of money that the industry simply doesnt have? That there is no reason for anyone to believe that the Federal government will be any more effective in its oversight than the states currently are? That the great majority of people in the business are against horse slaughter yet see the issues that arise because of the ban of it.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

That racing is hardly doing nothing in many cases. That some of the issues brought up like the ones involving the sales have already been dealt with through regulatory changes and state laws. That there needs to be a whole lot more clarification than to simply say "drugs". That there are customers that wont appreciate paying more for the product despite the pleas of Moss, Van Berg, and Jackson. That this is a far more complex issue because many of the "drugs" that are being talked about are useful medications that would not be an issue in a human sport yet are in ours. That this whole endeavor would cost a tremendous amount of money that the industry simply doesnt have? That there is no reason for anyone to believe that the Federal government will be any more effective in its oversight than the states currently are? That the great majority of people in the business are against horse slaughter yet see the issues that arise because of the ban of it.

I don't think any of the panelists demanded federal intervention. It sounded like all hoped the industry could ultimately do all of this itself.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

That racing is hardly doing nothing in many cases. That some of the issues brought up like the ones involving the sales have already been dealt with through regulatory changes and state laws.

I don't know that I'd use the Sales Integrity Task Force as an example of the industry doing a good job of cleaning up its own house. Have there been some improvements, yes. However, the industry continues to tolerate a whole lot of practices that would be, at best, questionable in almost any other line of business.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I don't know that I'd use the Sales Integrity Task Force as an example of the industry doing a good job of cleaning up its own house. Have there been some improvements, yes. However, the industry continues to tolerate a whole lot of practices that would be, at best, questionable in almost any other line of business.

There have been laws passed in KY and Fl that deal with many of these issues.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There have been laws passed in KY and Fl that deal with many of these issues.

... and that don't deal with many other issues.

Let me put it this way. Would you want to hold up the integrity of the sales to an outsider as an example of how "clean" the business is?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

... and that don't deal with many other issues.

Let me put it this way. Would you want to hold up the integrity of the sales to an outsider as an example of how "clean" the business is?

I get guys calling me all the time to "invest" with them. Or invest in oil wells. Or other things. Who polices them? I never said that the sales were perfect and there are people with whom i wont do business with. But there have been reforms made so to say that there havent is wrong. How do you propose that the sales are cleaned up. I'm serious, i would like to hear your views.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I get guys calling me all the time to "invest" with them. Or invest in oil wells. Or other things. Who polices them? I never said that the sales were perfect and there are people with whom i wont do business with. But there have been reforms made so to say that there havent is wrong. How do you propose that the sales are cleaned up. I'm serious, i would like to hear your views.

If you read my responses, I never said that changes haven't been made. Part of the problem is that you've been in the business for years, and you know who not to deal with. I've been involved far less (5+ years now), and I have some ideas about certain consignors with whom I won't do business. But what about the new guy who doesn't have such insight? How many of them have been ripped off and are now out of the business?

As for problem items: The drugs are one item, unregulated as they are at the 2YO sales, but we don't need to belabor that point.

My concerns go more to the shenanigans that often go on at the sales. Some examples are phony sales/numbers to drive up stallion averages (which presents a whole different set of problems for breeders); undisclosed ownership of horses in the sales; phantom bidding when there's really no "live" money in the ring; and dual agency (or racing's euphemism for conflict of interest).

I'll give you an example of a situation that drove me nuts last year at Saratoga. We were looking at a horse in the NY-bred Preferred Sale and had him vetted out. Before doing so, the consignor told us that the reserve on the horse was going to be about $45,000. In the interest of shortening the story, we got off the horse (interested in others) and never bid on the horse in question. The horse RNA'd for $60,000, with who knows how much live money on him. The next morning, the consignor shows up at my trainer's barn and tells me: "You almost got him" and then intimated that he wanted to see if a private sale was possible. I told him that we never bid on the horse (you should have seen the look on his face when I told him that) and that we weren't interested. Had we been interested, who knows how much money his phony bidding would have fleeced us for?