Santa Anita 2019

User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Wed May 29, 2019 5:21 pm

Enough horse deaths. Santa Anita should stop racing for the season
Enough. Sunday marked the 26th death of a horse as a result of racing or training at Santa Anita Park since the winter racing season started in late December. That’s an extraordinary cluster of deaths in a relatively short period of time, and the park still has no good explanation for why it happened. It’s time for Santa Anita to end its season and stop racing until it has one.

To their credit, the owners of Santa Anita Park have put in place groundbreaking reforms. They have cut in half the allowable dose of the diuretic Lasix, which nearly every horse in this country races on, and plan to phase out its use over time. They have restricted the use of pain medications, which can mask an injury. They have increased the time that a horse must be on site before a race. The park has even sought to forbid jockeys from using their crops to whip horses into running faster, although the California Horse Racing Board must sign off on that. And they did all that in the face of opposition from some trainers and owners.

The park took these steps amid a sickening string of 23 horse deaths in the first few months of its winter season. It then went through more than six weeks of racing and training without a horse fatality, only to see three more deaths in nine days. None of the three allowed for easy explanation — much like the rest of the injuries that led to deaths.

The spotlight on Santa Anita should be widened to all the racetracks in the U.S., where deaths are lamented but tolerated.

Greater clarity could be forthcoming. The California Horse Racing Board and the L.A. County district attorney's office are conducting a joint investigation. Necropsies have been also done on the horses that have yet to be made public.

With those inquiries pending, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has called for a moratorium on racing at Santa Anita. Two animal welfare groups that have been working on reforms with the park and with the racing board — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Social Compassion in Legislation — want to go further, calling for a moratorium on racing at all tracks in California. In fact, PETA has called for a nationwide ban on racing until all tracks can implement reforms.

Without a doubt, the spotlight on Santa Anita should be widened to all the racetracks in the U.S., where deaths are lamented but tolerated. Horse racing is a risky sport for horses and jockeys. Last year there were 493 thoroughbred fatalities from racing, according to the Jockey Club. That doesn’t even count deaths as a result of training. In seven months of racing during the second half of 2017 and the first half of 2018 at Santa Anita, there was a total of 37 horse fatalities from training or racing. Yet there was no outcry.
More: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editori ... story.html
Somnambulist
Posts: 7732
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:59 pm

Wed May 29, 2019 6:51 pm

So all the new measures they implemented were never the problem to begin with.

Who would have thought?

I'm going to be watching the Belmont card through a lucky rabbits foot.
"Life's no piece of cake, mind you, but the recipe's my own to fool with."
User avatar
Diver52
Posts: 1762
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:44 pm
Location: Redlands, CA

Wed May 29, 2019 6:58 pm

This is just the laziest kind of journalism. I've lost all respect fot the L.A. Times, which recently ran an article sympathetically describing the ludicrous spectacle of PETA and sympathizers meeting on the steps of an area slaughterhouse to offer "comfort" to the hogs. :roll:
I ran marathons. I saw the Taj Mahal by Moonlight. I drove Highway 1 in a convertible. I petted Zenyatta.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Thu May 30, 2019 6:14 pm

Excellent article by Sid Fernando, explains why I'm so on the fence about the elimination of Lasix across the board.

Taking Stock: Beneath Lasix, EIPH Is Real
“Back in the early 1970s, you’d see horses bleeding from the nostrils more commonly than you do now,” said trainer Barclay Tagg, who took out his license in 1971. “I had a horse back then that came back after a race, and he was being washed up and suddenly he starts gushing blood from the nostrils. You barely see them bleed from the nostrils now, and that’s because of Lasix.” Tagg said he was a proponent for the use of the diuretic Lasix to combat exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage, or EIPH, a condition that results in bleeding in the lungs from exercise and racing. Its extreme manifestation is epistaxis, or bleeding through the nostrils, and this condition has existed for as long as Thoroughbred history has been recorded over the last 300-plus years. That’s a point that gets forgotten when partisans debate Lasix usage.

Lasix officially entered the racing landscape in Maryland in the mid-1970s as a therapeutic treatment to reduce the effects of EIPH and is now used almost exclusively on most racehorses in this country on race days, though race-day Lasix is prohibited abroad. As a diuretic, Lasix lowers blood pressure, and this is thought to mitigate bleeding by relieving pressure on capillaries in the lungs that burst during stress. It was known and used by some trainers at least a decade before it was officially sanctioned, and Northern Dancer was reportedly administered the drug by Dr. Alex Harthill for the 1964 Kentucky Derby. “I was good friends with Dr. Harthill, and I can confirm that. He told me personally that he gave it to Northern Dancer,” Tagg said.

Lasix usage has been controversial for a long time and is even more so nowadays with the mainstream publicity surrounding the fatalities at Santa Anita, which have somehow been publicly linked to the drug–without the evidence of science. For example, one of the first reforms instituted during the eye of the storm by The Stronach Group (TSG), owner of Santa Anita, was a reduction in the race-day dosage of Lasix, which had the effect of implying to the public that larger doses may have played a part in the breakdowns. Joe Drape in the New York Times was more direct, writing: “[Lasix] is also thought to increase the chance of catastrophic injury to a horse’s thin legs.”

I’ve read as many legitimate peer-reviewed scientific papers and studies on Lasix dating back to the 1980s as anyone else, and I’ve yet to come across one that states what Drape did, in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country no less. TSG’s stance on Lasix is more understandable as a reflexive PR maneuver and a deflection from its racing surface, especially as a Jockey Club-led medication reform federal bill that would ban race-day Lasix was introduced in Congress during this period of tumult at Santa Anita. All of this has unfortunately fudged the lines between cause and effect for legislators like Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has called for a suspension of racing at Santa Anita and a review of medication policies, and journalists like Drape and others reporting on the deaths in mainstream media.

Aside from the black eye of the current fatalities at Santa Anita, racing’s image hasn’t been helped over the last five or so years by partisan debates over earlier versions of the current bill in Congress. A lot of the damage is specifically from the chorus of some of the bill’s supporters in the media equating Lasix with illegal “drugging” despite that Lasix is legal and sanctioned by every racing jurisdiction in this country. This confusion has only added to governmental and public perception outside racing circles that the sport and industry is riddled with chronic drug and animal abuse, and it’s brought to the fore groups like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which was– surprisingly–invited by TSG to the Santa Anita discussions. PETA is now calling for the suspension of racing nationwide until reforms like those instituted at Santa Anita are applied to all tracks in the country, even though the reforms at Santa Anita haven’t completely stopped the fatalities.

The net effect is that the industry is under siege from the outside, and within it there’s a chasm between a cadre of wealthy owners and breeders who are against the use of race-day Lasix and who back The Jockey Club’s federal initiative, and trainers and smaller owners on the other side who don’t support the proposed legislation. “Sure, I’d be for getting rid of Lasix,” Tagg said, “if they found another way to treat bleeders that works. Lasix, if used properly, is not as debilitating as people think, either. If they are treated right the next few days after a race and get plenty of fresh water, an electrolyte jug the day after, and get some grazing, they rebound quickly.”

Deconstructing this entanglement the industry finds itself in first and foremost requires admitting publicly that EIPH is a real disorder and needs to be addressed and treated one way or another if race-day Lasix is ultimately held as the scapegoat for industry ills and is banned.
More: http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/ta ... h-is-real/
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 12:34 am

From Margaret Ransom, who was so instrumental in exposing the Maria Borell disaster.

California Racing Is In Trouble, So Where Are Our Industry Leaders?
For the past five months, like just about everyone else whose life and livelihood is entrenched in horse racing, I have watched horses at Santa Anita in California die in record numbers and the owners of the track, The Stronach Group (TSG), scramble to diffuse what has become a very volatile issue with minimal success. It’s no secret I’m not the biggest fan of TSG these days for various reasons and I’ve been flabbergasted by some of their actions in shifting blame and muddying waters with issues having nothing to do with now 26 dead horses, but I also know that this situation isn’t deliberate and none of the powers that be enjoy seeing injured and dead horses anywhere, let alone on their watch.

I worked for Sana Anita for seven years and have been directly involved in California racing for 20, and I proudly refer to everyone at Santa Anita as “my people.” So while I applaud TSG for taking a much overdue hard line on important concerns like whips and medication reform after the initial outcry over the deaths of 20+ horses, unfortunately those reforms have so far done precious little to calm the public’s criticism. The dull roar of initial concern has now turned to outright yelling, every loud voice calling for the end to horse racing altogether starting with California.

I also wish TSG had not invited the terrorist group PETA in to the discussion, but it’s too late to change it. PETA has moved into our house and unpacked, and they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon… if ever.

Personally I’ve never really been on board with the concept that breakdowns are “part of the game.” Even one racehorse death is too many, but I also know horses and know how keeping them safe in every discipline is an enormous task in and of itself. I also know that in racing, 95 percent of the people are in the game because they love horses and care for them and wouldn’t willfully put them in danger. A single breakdown or injured horse affects everyone, but knowing these things and relaying them to the critical public are two separate things entirely. Thoroughbreds are bred to run and they love it, and I defy anyone to say differently.

But each successive death at Santa Anita has brought a building level of scrutiny, right or wrong, from not only advocates and local media, but also from mainstream media sources. National news networks like ABC, NBC and CBS, as well as CNN, Fox News and BBC America have reported the 26 deaths both on their live newscasts and their social media, the multiple Facebook posts drawing thousands of comments and shares, almost all negative and almost all calling for the abolishment of horse racing completely. Any horse racing supporters who dare comment to correct or share positivity are viciously attacked, as has become the social media norm, and supporters understandably retreat, leaving what amounts to a false narrative and outcry to not only fester, but grow. Even a story on a local affiliate’s Facebook page about Corgi races at Santa Anita on Saturday turned into a horse racing bashing free-for-all that is still active today, days later.

Yes, these stories are largely clickbait for the news sites. Some outlets even post the same story multiple times. But they do it because they get the reaction, which is overwhelmingly negative. I can’t fault them for it.

The potential fan base for horse racing as of now in Southern California has not only been lost, it has come close to being obliterated completely and I’m not sure it’s ever coming back.
More: https://www.usracing.com/news/features/ ... ry-leaders
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 12:50 am

Hovdey: Anti-slaughter bill racing's first line of defense
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that in one of his more pragmatic moments. If what he suggests is true, the Thoroughbred racing world must be overflowing with intellectual firepower.

There is “We love horses, and horses love to run” vs. “Serious injuries and fatalities are just part of the game.”

There is “We oppose the use of Lasix because it is not good for our horses” vs. “Our horses run on Lasix because we need to be competitive.”

And then there is “We support federal regulation of horse racing” vs. “We do not support federal legislation banning horse slaughter.”

Horse racing has been taking a beating this year, from both self-inflicted wounds and a drive-by national media suddenly concerned about something other than White House tweets. The recent HBO Real Sports segment on horse abuse was one of those snuff-porn exercises in pretend investigative journalism that elicits only screams of “Yes!” or “No!” rather than constructive dialogue.

Alex Waldrop, head of the NTRA, offered a point-by-point dismissal of the HBO program in a letter to the network that was as close to a unified racing industry statement as there can be. Waldrop noted this week that he has received no response from HBO regarding his challenge to both the errors of commission and omission in the segment. What a surprise.

At this point, in an atmosphere so poisoned, racing does not have the Don Draper option of “changing the conversation.” But racing does have a slam-dunk chance to cultivate public approval with a simple, low-calorie effort that should have 100 percent backing from all corners of the fragmented industry:

Support the SAFE ACT (H.R. 961) banning horse slaughter and its facilitation.

No horses are legally slaughtered for their meat in the U.S. because Congress has defunded the inspections of equine slaughterhouses. And yet, the United States continues to supply the international horse slaughter industry by allowing horses to be sold and transported to Canada and Mexico, and then on to horsemeat-eating countries in Europe and Asia.

The current version of the SAFE Act was introduced in February and is sitting in the Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture. The bill would outlaw slaughter in the U.S. once and for all and forbid horses to be exported for slaughter. In one sense, it is a blindingly honest bill, since its particulars point out that any meat from the vast majority of American horses ending up in the slaughter pipeline would be tainted in varying degrees by medication they received as work horses, pleasure horses, or racehorses, for the simple reason that they were never raised as a food source to begin with.

The NTRA’s Waldrop was asked if his coalition of racing interests would lead the charge to support passage of the SAFE Act and end horse slaughter as an issue hanging over the head of the sport. His response: “While we strongly oppose the slaughter of Thoroughbreds for human consumption, NTRA members and affiliates represent a wide spectrum of views regarding a legislated ban on slaughter, so we have for the last several years chosen to remain neutral on the [Act]. Nonetheless, we continue to re-evaluate that position with each iteration of the SAFE Act.”

Asked the same question, James Gagliano of The Jockey Club echoed,

“The Jockey Club board hasn’t taken a formal position on this particular act,” Gagliano said. “However, we have a policy that says The Jockey Club is unequivocally opposed to the slaughter or processing of Thoroughbreds for consumption by humans or animals. This includes the sale and/or transportation of Thoroughbreds for slaughter.”

Chris Heyde hears this and sighs. The Washington, D.C., lobbyist, now through his firm Blue Marble Strategy, has been fighting the anti-slaughter fight for most of this century.
More: https://www.drf.com/news/hovdey-anti-sl ... ne-defense
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 12:51 am

I feel like the Lasix issue is a false debate. Other countries do fine removing bleeders from their gene pool or managing their races. Why can’t America?

If a horse is an excessive bleeder then why should they keep being made to run? Or better yet, what if Lasix had to be prescribed and was only given to horses with a history of bleeding rather than being administered to anything with hooves in a 5 mile radius from a racetrack?

What if there were entirely separate races: those carded for bleeders (with a prescription to lasix) and then all the major graded stakes would be restricted to non-lasix. This would put the US within regulation for the rest of the world after all.
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 2:04 am

Treve wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 12:51 am
I feel like the Lasix issue is a false debate. Other countries do fine removing bleeders from their gene pool or managing their races. Why can’t America?

If a horse is an excessive bleeder then why should they keep being made to run? Or better yet, what if Lasix had to be prescribed and was only given to horses with a history of bleeding rather than being administered to anything with hooves in a 5 mile radius from a racetrack?

What if there were entirely separate races: those carded for bleeders (with a prescription to lasix) and then all the major graded stakes would be restricted to non-lasix. This would put the US within regulation for the rest of the world after all.
I don't know that other countries have successfully removed bleeders from their gene pool. We still get some horses moved to this country to race because they've bled a couple of times in Europe. I'm fine with any of your suggestions, however, and it would be okay with me if graded stakes were restricted to non-Lasix.

I think the article made the point that it's not the wealthy owners who will be out of business with no Lasix. It's the small ones like me who race at the lower levels who won't stay in business. Our horses make up a large proportion of the racing population and parimutuel pools here. We feel we've had a good year when we've come close to breaking even, are heavy into aftercare, and don't want to just cycle through a bunch of horses. That's not why we do it.

There doesn't seem to be much desire for compromise though, so I don't have much hope.
User avatar
ElPrado2
Posts: 2194
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:45 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 2:56 pm

Going down the page, slightly...

How do you offer comfort to a hog?
Do you read it poetry? Offer it a bouquet? Hand it a prayer leaflet?
katmandu
Posts: 1177
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am

Fri May 31, 2019 3:19 pm

ElPrado2 wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 2:56 pm
Going down the page, slightly...

How do you offer comfort to a hog?
Do you read it poetry? Offer it a bouquet? Hand it a prayer leaflet?
I wondered about that, too. Better to make efforts to encourage people to curtail their meat consumption, and equally important, go after agribusiness. It's not so much how the animals die, as how they live. . .
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 6:57 pm

From the Washington Post. Paulick picked up the story. There're are things to nitpick with, but I agree with a lot of what she says. The comments on both articles are indicative of where we're at now.

Thoroughbred racing needs reforms, and not from lawmakers
Thoroughbred racing, more than all other sports, confronts the human participants with their own characters. In any other game, you’re responsible only for yourself. But racing is all about the handling of the horses: At the heart of the contest is the matter of trust, the sacred obligation to do decently and right by a reliant creature. It’s the thinnest of lines between a meaningful pursuit and an abuse. The minute a horse’s best advocate is a Washington lawmaker is the minute that line has been crossed.

It should not take congressional action or another call for a moratorium on racing at Santa Anita by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to force certain basic and comprehensive reforms on thoroughbred racing. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that reforms be voluntary and self-imposed or racing will lose any real excuse for its existence. The owners of Santa Anita Park have recognized this and instituted some excellent measures in response to 26 horse deaths in a season. But they were essentially piecemeal reactive responses to a rash of fatalities that repelled the public, and they have not been fully accepted by other tracks, nor has the question of what’s causing these deaths been solved.

You always hear that nobody loves the horses more than their handlers. But when are they going to show it? If they can’t muster the will to organize and institute a national governing body with a uniform program of protections for horses and penalties for abusers, then they don’t really love them. They just like and enjoy them, until they have to dispose of them.

The best advocate for a thoroughbred is not a congressman. Representatives Garland “Andy” Barr (R-Ky.) and Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) have proposed the Horseracing Integrity Act, a bill that would regulate the game by law and institute World Anti-Doping Agency-like drug testing. But it should never come to that; anyone who would prioritize the horses’ best interests only because of a law doesn’t belong in the sport.

The best advocates are the many breeders, owners, trainers, jockeys, hot walkers and grooms who feel deep partnership and kinship with the horses. One of them is my old friend David Israel, former chair of the California Horse Racing Board. Israel, a former journalist who served six years on the board through 2013 and owns a horse trained in Bob Baffert’s barn, long has advocated for a “voluntary” national governing body, “led by a commissioner with regulatory authority to implement penalties” on every issue from medication to animal welfare and jockey safety to track conditions.
More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/t ... eb94beb1fb

Washington Post Column: Horse Racing Needs Governing Body, Not Legislation
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/the- ... gislation/
stark
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Fri May 31, 2019 7:11 pm

Couple of late scratches, both from the Miller barn.
Hmmmm.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 7:28 pm

CHRB, Feinstein discuss federal oversight legislation in call
California Senator Dianne Feinstein and members of her staff held a conference call with California Horse Racing Board chairman Chuck Winner and executive director Rick Baedeker on Friday to discuss a variety of subjects related to horse safety issues that have affected the sport in California in recent months.

According to Winner, who declined to discuss specifics of the call, the conversation included topics such as federal oversight legislation for horse racing and measures being taken to curtail a series of equine fatalities at Santa Anita this year.

On Monday, Feinstein issued a statement, calling for a suspension of racing in reaction to the equine fatalities. Feinstein issued a similar statement in early April.

Winner said the statement was not part of Friday’s discussion.

“It was a positive call in the sense that it was productive, in my view, with the senator and her staff,” Winner said. “We’ll continue to work with them.

“Most of the conversation was about federal legislation. We had a positive conversation. She’s very insightful and asked a lot of good questions.

“She cares very much about California and horses. She wants it to be as safe as possible, as do we.”
More: https://www.drf.com/news/chrb-feinstein ... ation-call
Somnambulist
Posts: 7732
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:59 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 10:22 pm

I don't know why she's being strung up for crusifiction.

I have been on this forum close to 20 years (oh wow) and every year so many of us have said that the industry's inability to get itself together would likely lead to a government step in.
"Life's no piece of cake, mind you, but the recipe's my own to fool with."
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 11:04 pm

Absolutely true, Somnambulist. All of this was predictable, and we painfully watched it unfold in real time. But it's popular to be divisive and fugly political now, so the bashers here don't surprise me much.
Somnambulist
Posts: 7732
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:59 pm

Fri May 31, 2019 11:20 pm

Sparrow Castle wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 11:04 pm
Absolutely true, Somnambulist. All of this was predictable, and we painfully watched it unfold in real time. But it's popular to be divisive and fugly political now, so the bashers here don't surprise me much.
I did a really quick search the other day to see if she's ever taken PETA money to justify the slamming, but I couldn't find any. Granted -- I'm talking really quick research and I have been really sick this week. If she did indeed not take PETA money I'm finding this an exercise in cognitive dissonance. On social media I am very much disappointed with the pollyanna ostrich mindset of big names in racing and it's fans. Yes, many people love horses and want what's best. I'd suggest many don't as well. Telling anyone with valid criticism they have no idea what is going on is not helpful. The truth, IMO, is rarely extreme and often lies somewhere in the middle. You'd think at some point the good apples would want to expose the bad ones and that anyone would move to organize this.

I wish racing loved itself as much as I have over the years. Wanting to be better does not meant you think the product is deficient to begin with - it means just that - to be better. Instead, I feel like I'm watching a good friend with a drug problem self destruct. I don't think the industry has quite reached it's 9 lives but it is perilously close.
"Life's no piece of cake, mind you, but the recipe's my own to fool with."
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:04 am

Somnambulist wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 11:20 pm
Sparrow Castle wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 11:04 pm
Absolutely true, Somnambulist. All of this was predictable, and we painfully watched it unfold in real time. But it's popular to be divisive and fugly political now, so the bashers here don't surprise me much.
I did a really quick search the other day to see if she's ever taken PETA money to justify the slamming, but I couldn't find any. Granted -- I'm talking really quick research and I have been really sick this week. If she did indeed not take PETA money I'm finding this an exercise in cognitive dissonance. On social media I am very much disappointed with the pollyanna ostrich mindset of big names in racing and it's fans. Yes, many people love horses and want what's best. I'd suggest many don't as well. Telling anyone with valid criticism they have no idea what is going on is not helpful. The truth, IMO, is rarely extreme and often lies somewhere in the middle. You'd think at some point the good apples would want to expose the bad ones and that anyone would move to organize this.

I wish racing loved itself as much as I have over the years. Wanting to be better does not meant you think the product is deficient to begin with - it means just that - to be better. Instead, I feel like I'm watching a good friend with a drug problem self destruct. I don't think the industry has quite reached it's 9 lives but it is perilously close.
I think your friend with a drug problem analogy is a good one. In both situations, those of us who care so much are without the ability to make things better. Stories in the major papers and other media beget the attention of the general public and politicians. That their perspective may not be complete is no reason to diminish and whine about what they say that has a lot of truth to it.

I’ve stated here before that I think the industry has not done all we can to prevent horse deaths and injuries, and we do know now what at least some of those things are. I'm most disappointed in the Jockey Club, and those mostly aging white male leaders who seem to think the federal legislation on drug reform is all we need to solve the problems. But the problems are much more than drug reform, albeit that’s a big one. They own the truck (the breed registry) and really should take the wheel.

TSG’s response to the problems at Santa Anita really exposed the void of national leadership in this industry. I think it’s ludicrous to think track owners could take the lead in horse health and safety when they can’t provide an appropriate racing surface, be transparent or accountable to their equine and human communities, and they pressure owners and trainers to run horses to fill their cards whether or not that’s in their best interests.

I get the need for a federal legislative mandate because state commissions have had more than a decade to voluntarily adopt the ARCI uniform regulations and haven’t done so. The commissions are too closely connected to the wealthy special interest groups in their states, eg track owners, horse owners and trainers.

And you are very correct in that not all in the industry have the best interests of the horse or the sport as a whole as their primary motivation. Now I'm lumping in the alphabet soups along with the racing commissions. I'm still in shock that the use of Lasix and crops would be what gets everybody in their corners and unwilling to work together for the common good we can all agree on. And why or why would anyone who loves horses not come out in favor of anti-slaughter legislation???

I still wish the federal mandate would include the formation of a national racing commission with the power to systematically tackle all the problems in the industry. I guess as long as I’m wishing, I also wish it could be done voluntarily within the industry, and leave government and its political appointees in a less intrusive role. I could go on and on, but I've already said it all before. We must do better and it's time for a radical change.

Paulick started another thread on how to organize this.

Ray Paulick @raypaulick
9h9 hours ago
Serious question: What is the best source of leadership in the Thoroughbred industry, either from an organization or an individual? Who can best help right this ship?

Or should racing seek outside professional help?
https://twitter.com/raypaulick/status/1 ... 2221743104
stark
Posts: 5110
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:31 pm

On a somewhat related note, an article from several years ago mostly about Senator Cory Booker, but also mentions...Most recently, Booker joined Sen. Dianne Feinstein in co-sponsoring a bill to limit antibiotics in livestock. According to GovTrack.us, the bill only has a 1 percent chance of passing.

https://nypost.com/2015/01/04/cory-book ... extremsim/
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
lurkey mclurker
Posts: 2621
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:15 pm

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:27 pm

I think your friend with a drug problem analogy is a good one. In both situations, those of us who care so much are without the ability to make things better. Stories in the major papers and other media beget the attention of the general public and politicians. That their perspective may not be complete is no reason to diminish and whine about what they say that has a lot of truth to it.

I’ve stated here before that I think the industry has not done all we can to prevent horse deaths and injuries, and we do know now what at least some of those things are.
Right there with you, SC.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:51 pm

The Week in Review: So, What Would It Take to Appease Animal Rights Activists?
On Monday, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein called for a moratorium on horse racing at Santa Anita, as well as the need for a “thorough investigation of practices and conditions” in the sport. The Democratic Senator from California does not have the power to close racing at Santa Anita, but her voice is a powerful and influential one and her latest statement further tightened the noose around Santa Anita’s neck.

Not that everyone, be they a politician, an animal rights activist, an owner, trainer, even a $2 bettor, should not want horse racing to be as safe as possible for the equine athletes, but the timing of her assault on the sport was not fair. It was also a sign that this issue is just not going to go away easily. Not when Santa Anita has done so much to turn the corner and so few horses have broken down since the initial rash of fatalities.
More: http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/th ... activists/
Post Reply