New York Times

All posts tagged New York Times

California made right call on Justify’s drug positive

Posted by noonante on September 19, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Horse racing faces yet another major crisis.  Joe Drape of The New York Times reported that 2018 Triple Crown winner Justify tested positive for a prohibited drug after the Santa Anita Derby.  He needed a first or second in that race just to be eligible to run in the Kentucky Derby.  Had he been disqualified in California, he would not have become the 13th horse to win the Triple Crown.

There has been considerable media coverage of this event since the only racing news that gets considerable coverage is when it is negative.  Coming on the heels of the 30 fatalities that occurred at Santa Anita early this year, it is  –  to state the obvious  –  not what racing needs.  It is also, however, an overblown event in which too many in the media are eager to portray it as a scandal.

Justify’s post-race test showed traces of scopolamine.  It is found in the drug Buscopan, but also in jimson weed, a plant that can appear in straw and hay and, thus, represents a possible source of environmental contamination that would appear in a horse’s blood or urine.  When trainer Bob Baffert was notified of the positive, he requested that a split sample be tested.  This is standard practice for drug positives and serves as a check on the original finding.  That sample also came back positive.

Positive findings are reviewed by the California Horse Racing Board, that state’s regulatory body overseeing horse racing.  In an executive session (i.e. private) in August, 2018, the Board decided that the positive was the result of environmental contamination and that no penalty should be assessed against the purse won by the owners or Baffert.  None of this became public until Drape wrote his article that appeared last week.

It was inevitable that a media frenzy would develop as a result of Drape’s piece.  Both National Public Radio and Drape have now said that Justify was ineligible to win the Derby and the Triple Crown.  I expect more from respected outlets such as NPR and the Times.  The most helpful report has been a September 12 piece by Frank Angst of BloodHorse.com, who is the source for much of which I write here.

Many racing fans and industry leaders thought the declining fortunes of racing as a significant feature of America’s sports landscape would be reversed by a Triple Crown winner.  It is perhaps the ultimate irony that it is just such a horse that may prove to be yet another nail in the coffin of a sport that has not recovered from the Santa Anita fatalities this year.

Here is what I am able to glean are the facts regarding the drug positive.  It is based on Angst’s reporting which relies on interviews with Dr. Rick Arthur, the Equine Medical Director of California, and Dr. Mary Scollay, formerly in the same position in Kentucky, and now with the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium.  In my experience writing about racing, and listening to both vets speak in various forums, I have found each individual to be knowledgeable, reliable and credible.

Justify’s urine sample showed a concentration of scopolamine of 300 nanograms per milliliter, in excess of the California threshold for the drug.  According to Arthur, the blood test showed a lower concentration, which was a factor in Arthur’s recommending no penalty to the CHRB.  (It is not clear from the reporting if the concentration in the sample of blood also exceeded California’s limit.)

In addition, Arthur said that the test showed the presence of the drug atropine, which also would be associated with jimson weed if that was the source of the overage.  Atropine would not be in the sample if the source of the scopolamine was Buscopan administered by a human.

As a general matter, the overage of any impermissible drug in excess of the regulatory limit is a violation, and under the industry-wide “absolute insurer” rule, the trainer is responsible for the overage without regard to personal fault.  The penalty for a violation is subject to several factors.

The Association of Racing Commissioners International has produced guidelines on penalties that assign impermissible medications into groups based on the nature of the drug and its effect on equine health and performance.  There is then a classification of penalties that is designed to match the severity of the violation with an appropriate penalty.  California has adopted many of the ARCI’s protocols, although the drug classifiations and penalty guidelines are not an exact match.  This bit of arcana is only worth mentioning because the ARCI moved scopolamine to a lower (i.e., less severe) classification and the CHRB did not immediately follow suit, so that California’s higher classification was in effect at the time of Justify’s positive.

Both Arthur and Dr. Scollay were involved in the decision by the ARCI to lower the classification of scopolamine as part of a comprehensive review of medications on the list.  Angst reports that Scollay and Arthur viewed the lowering of the classification as warranted because there was little potential for the medication being performance-enhancing and because of the high likelihood of environmental contamination.

The delay in changing the classification of scopolamine by the CHRB meant that a more severe penalty could be imposed.  Under the higher level, the horse could have been disqualified.  But California’s penalty schedule did not call for that penalty under the lower classification to which scopolamine was ultimately moved.

What has been missed in much of the commentary on this issue, including the three articles by Joe Drape, is that California’s regulations do not, and did not, require disqualification of Justify even under the higher penalty classification.  The CHRB rules call for deviation from the standards “where the facts of the particular case warrant such a deviation,”  including “mitigating circumstances.”  Among the mitigating circumstances cited is the “probability of environmental contamination.”  This approach is consistent with the model rules recommended by the ARCI.

Another important element overlooked in almost all the coverage is that the rules of the CHRB require that the results of the “official test sample and the split sample shall be, and shall remain confidential … unless and until the Board files an official complaint or accusation.”  I have written often about the self-defeating lack of transparency by government agencies and that was my initial reaction when this story broke.  But if Drape, NPR and many others complain about the CHRB not following its rules, we should expect they mean all rules.  It is not hard to understand why the CHRB has such a rule.  Absent some sort of finding that there has been a violation, owners and trainers should not be subject to the negative publicity attendant with claims determined to be not worth pursuing.

Drape’s article is shoddy, irresponsible and more of advocacy journalism than factual reporting.  Ironically, the third of his articles appeared on the same day as another Times piece pertaining to Brett Kavanaugh that is also being accused of similar defects by critics on both sides of the political spectrum.

Drape, who wrote three articles on this over five days, began with “Justify should not have run in the Derby if the sport’s rules were followed,” completely ignoring the rules mentioned above.  He claimed that the CHRB found environmental contamination even though there was “little evidence” to support it.  And then he said the Board could have acted more swiftly, citing a single case in which a trainer’s employee was “caught on surveillance” administering a prohibited substance leading to a complaint being filed 28 days later.

Because of the Times‘ reputation, other outlets picked up the story as written.  NPR not only did no investigation on its own, but was able to add additional incorrect information, such as Scott Simon saying Justify should have been disqualified until an investigation was complete, applying a standard that is rarely used in any situation not involving an imminent threat to safety.

The following is my assessment of where we are at  –  or should be at:

  •  Justify tested positive for the impermissible drug scopolamine in a post-race test following the Santa Anita Derby, in which he needed a first or second to qualify for the Kentucky Derby;
  •  Scopolamine is present in the veterinary medicine Buscopan, as well as in jimson weed, a plant-based contaminant that can appear in hay and straw;
  • A nationally-recognized expert, Dr. Rick Arthur, has stated that the drug atropine was also present in Justify’s sample, and that atropine would be present in jimson weed, but not Buscopan;
  • The Association of Racing Commissioners International, has determined that scopolamine is a drug with less significant effects than originally thought and lowered its ranking on a drug classification scale;
  • The CHRB delayed in amending its own rules and did not lower the classification of scopolamine until after Justify’s positive test;
  • Under the CHRB’s prior classification, Justify could have been disqualified from his placing in the Santa Anita Derby, but the regulations did not require it;  under the revised classification, Justify could not have been disqualified;
  • Environmental contamination such as jimson weed in straw and hay can be considered an environmental contamination warranting a reduced penalty (or none at all) under the CHRB rules;
  • The CHRB’s rules mandate that drug positives be confidential unless there a complaint filed.

So despite the hysteria in the media on this issue, I think a fair characterization of the matter would be:  “Justify tested positive for a drug that is not considered performance-enhancing, and the CHRB decided it was likely the result of environmental contamination, and the CHRB did not make this public because that is what its rules require.”

That is not to say, however, that this could not have been handled in a better way by the CHRB.  It is foolhardy to think that a story as explosive as this would not become public and subject racing to the widespread condemnation it is now again undergoing.  Baffert, not someone naïve in the ways of communication, would also had realized this and could have consented to waiving his right to confidentiality to get him and California out in front of the story and being able to control the narrative.

There is also the question of the conflicts-of-interest.  CHRB members may have current and direct interests in horses.  The Chairman at the time of the deliberations on Justify had Baffert train horses for him.  There is a retired jockey on the Board who I think may have been active while on the Board.  I have mixed feelings about this, although it is clear recusal is the remedy when a matter implicates a possible conflict  –  such as the Chairman hearing a case involving Baffert.

But it is good to have people on a board overseeing racing who have some knowledge of the sport.  A contrast is that of the New York Gaming Commission where I do not think a single commissioner has any racing background, leading them to accept staff recommendations often with no discussion, questions or comments.  A simple solution would be to have a mix of backgrounds with strict recusal rules.

But the Justify affair is yet another example  –  as if we needed more  – that horse racing suffers from the lack of a national body with credibility.  For starters, there is no national figure who can comment on this.  Football, basketball and baseball all have commissioners who can speak for the sport.  As much respect as Rick Arthur deserves, he is just one of many state veterinarians who are completely unknown to anyone but knowledgeable observers.

If there were a national body such as the United States Anti-Doping Agency that oversees sports such as cycling and track and field, there would be a recognized entity that could not be criticized for partiality or lack of expertise, and that could be immune from the criticism of a rigged outcome or an “insider’s game.”

If racing’s leaders think this is just another storm that will pass, they are deluding themselves about the cumulative effect these stories have on a public that will ultimately decide the fate of the sport.  And, by the way, another horse died at Santa Anita this week.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is NYRA not responding to the latest attack by the New York Times?

Posted by noonante on January 6, 2015
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . 2 Comments

The Sunday New York Times featured the latest in the paper’s dyspeptic campaign against horse racing, this time a broadside leveled at Aqueduct Racetrack.  I find it surprising that the New York Racing Association has been silent in the face of an attack on the track that accounts for one-half of its annual race dates.

The piece was a photo essay in the Metropolitan section of the paper.  There were six images  –  none of which I found particularly interesting  –  but the accompanying text by a Times staffer is what was odious.  After an introductory sentence about racing providing one of the great American spectacles, we finished with six paragraphs that were downright laughable.

While saying that the Aqueduct facility is a “decaying building populated by lonely old men” may have elements of truth, the 24-year old photography student from Italy had other observations apparently based on his extensive experience.  For example, he encountered  – and I hope you are sitting down for this  –  someone who was divorced.  He observed that “[t]there is a lot of psychological damage there….  Not all of them should be free on the street.”

The kicker, however, was this one:  “One guy’s first memory of a racetrack was his father dying of a heart attack at a racetrack.  Most of the people had a story like that.”  While that certainly trumps being DQ’d from a winning Pick 6, “most people” have traumatic memories from the track?

Now, I have not been to Aqueduct in a few years since I live several hours away and can watch and wager from the comfort of my living room.  But the condition of the building was the subject of a flurry of criticism a year ago (when the photographs were taken), and from what I can gather, much has been done to improve its appearance.  Alan Mann of the blog Left at the Gate posted photographs last year of a clean and freshly-painted facility.  NYRA CEO Chris Kay presented a slide show at the last Board of Directors meeting describing what seem to be significant improvements.

It appears that the nation’s leading newspaper cannot be counted on to conduct even basic factual reporting when they have the opportunity to take a shot at racing.  But where is NYRA?  Not only are they running Aqueduct, but should be the leading voice supporting New York racing.  Kay purports to be an advocate for the fan experience.  He even hired a “Chief Experience Officer,” paying her a salary equal to that of the General Counsel.  Neither of them can respond to an attack on their product?

I am not suggesting that there are not issues concerning Aqueduct, some of which are considerably more serious that those alleged by the Times.  But if I am running a business, I do not let shoddy journalism go unanswered.  Unless, of course, there is a different agenda and the Times‘ hit piece furthers the interests of those wishing to close the track.

 

 

Racing authorities crack down on abuse

Posted by noonante on March 28, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , . 2 Comments

That could have been the headline for Joe Drape’s piece in today’s New York Times, but the Times chose to go with “Seamy Side of a Sport:  Prodding Horses With Shocks.”

In today’s article, Drape writes about the number of battery-related incidents throughout the country in which the authorities have taken disciplinary action:  “since 1974 there have been nearly 300 instances” and “[i]n the 2000s alone, there have been 53 buzzer cases.”  But the real attention-grabber is the allegation that Calvin Borel used a buzzer when working Super Saver before his win in the 2010 Kentucky Derby.  There is no allegation that he used one during the race itself.

For those who may have forgotten, last week brought us a disturbing nine-minute video produced by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Drape’s initial report, all based upon a PETA undercover investigator working in the barn of trainer Steve Asmussen.  Drape recounted a litany of alleged abuses, including that Asmussen and his long-time assistant Scott Blasi employed a jockey, Ricardo Santana Jr., who used a “machine” to shock horses.  A machine is a devise that emits electrical current and is also described as a “battery,” “buzzer,” or if you wish to be bilingual, a “máquina.”

I was aware of the allegations regarding Super Saver last week when I wrote this piece about the PETA claims.  PETA had provided me with a number of documents I requested, and the Super Saver part was in a complaint PETA filed with Louisville Metro Animal Services.  It was not included in the PETA video, unlike clips of Gary Stevens and Wayne Lukas laughing about battery use.  (Stevens has since acknowledged having used one 35 years ago when he was 16.)

But I was not willing to drag another name into this sordid mix based upon what PETA wrote in their complaint, particularly since I had serious reservations about the details.  The copies of the documents PETA provided to me had many names redacted, including that of the rider using the buzzer on Super Saver, although it would not have been much of a stretch to assume it was Borel.

The source of the evidence against Borel was provided by  –  according to Drape  –  two Asmussen employees.  Now I realize that track employees will move from one barn to another, but useful context by Drape would have been to point out that Asmussen did not train Super Saver  –  Todd Pletcher did.

One of the Asmussen employees was quoted in the PETA complaint as saying that Borel (presumably) used a buzzer “more than anybody.”  It may come as a surprise to someone who has never been to a track or the backstretch that hyperbole  –  not to mention inaccurate information  –  is not exactly in short supply.  Nonetheless, it was the evidence of their claim that caused my eyebrows to rise  –  and again, none of this is in the Drape piece but is from the PETA complaint.

Borel would supposedly use the buzzer coming off the final turn to get the horse to run closer to the rail  –  giving, of course, a whole new context to his nickname “Bo-rail.”  If he did this twice during workouts, according to PETA’s complaint, then the horse would be apprehensive when it came to a race and Borel was trying to get the horse to drop down against the rail.  I will leave for those considerably more knowledgeable whether having a scared horse heading for home is a good thing.

Then there is the detail that after the Derby, the witness saw Super Saver and that he had a “perfect strip of hide off his shoulder … [at perfect] rail height  –  straight line down the [expletive] horse.”  Borel’s agent was quoted in Drape’s article denying the allegation, saying, “Why would a guy who’s broken 43 bones in his body run a horse into a fence at 35 miles per hour?”  That certainly seems pretty compelling, but it does not really disprove the allegation.

But when you parse the words of the Asmussen employees, there is no actual allegation that Borel used a battery on Super Saver.  It is the two employees “knowledge” of the jockey’s reputation that passes for evidence Borel used a battery.  And one would think that a missing strip of the horse’s hide would have resulted in an inquiry from Pletcher, Kentucky officials or Pimlico officials.

Drape has apparently had more access to PETA’s materials than anyone else.  One would think that as a journalist he has an obligation to provide an accounting of what that access has been, as well as what he has not been allowed to see.  I am not one to reflexively blame the media for news I do not like, but Drape’s past performances of dropping negative horse racing articles during Derby week does call into question his objectivity.  Even in today’s article he mentions two allegations of battery use that did not bear out upon examination.  PETA, in the interest of full accountability, should be making all of their videos available.  They may, however, be hoping to make a big splash themselves during Derby week which would explain why the Super Saver conversations have yet to be released.

Yet another wake-up call for racing

Posted by noonante on March 25, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments

Racing at Saratoga brings many of the nation’s best horses, trainers and jockeys to the Spa for a 40-day meet in a resort atmosphere.  It also brings industry leaders who participate in the several seminars that take place.  Last year the unifying theme may well have been drugs and the public’s perception of widespread abuse.

At one such session last year, trainer John Kimmel lambasted those who thought that mistreatment of horses was a problem, blaming it on  –  wait for it  –  the media.  He challenged them to go to the backstretch to observe how well the horses are cared for.  Little did he know that as he was speaking, someone was doing just that, armed with a video camera.  This week, the work of the undercover investigator for PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) became public courtesy of Joe Drape of The New York Times and PETA’s web site.

According to Drape’s piece, the investigator worked in Steve Asmussen’s barn at Churchill Downs and Saratoga for four months.  It is clear no one was aware they were being recorded.  PETA has filed complaints with ten federal and state agencies based on the investigation, but it is a nine-minute video that has the racing world abuzz.  Among PETA’s allegations are the mistreatment of horses, the use of batteries to shock horses, administration of Lasix as a performance-enhancing drug, and numerous violations of employment laws.

Not surprisingly, given PETA’s orientation, the video is disturbing.  The horses featured are either dead, being injected with something, or subjected to a painful examination.  While any of those occurrences is a daily reality at a track somewhere, it is the words emanating from the humans that are most damning.

Scott Blasi, Asmussen’s long-time assistant trainer, is the star, if you will, of the production,  in large part because of his seeming inability to complete a sentence without using a common seven-letter expletive.  He is observed examining what appears to be the dreadful condition of 2011 Kentucky Derby runner-up Nehro’s feet, describing the pain caused by extracorporeal shock wave therapy, joking about the use of a “battery” by one of the barn’s jockeys, explaining the mechanics of hiring undocumented workers, and identifying one of the stable’s owners as a double expletive.  Interestingly, Asmussen’s lone speaking part in the film is a barely audible off-camera sentence about hiring undocumented workers.  Blasi has been “relieved of his duties pending a review” according to bloodhorse.com.

The reaction to the video has been predictable  –  ranging from outrage to condemnation of PETA as a biased source.  Indeed, the video was edited to less than 10 minutes from several hours of recordings, and there are portions that seem to have little purpose other than portraying horse racing in the most unflattering light possible.  For example, Wayne Lukas and Gary Stevens are depicted laughing about the use of batteries, including an admission by Stevens that he once used one.  It is not clear when he did, but the Lukas comment was obviously from a time over 30 years ago with no acknowledgement that he participated in it.

Similarly, Nehro’s death from colic is implicitly linked to what is portrayed as the continuous training of an injured horse, although there is no evidence that was the cause.  I unfortunately know from personal experience that colic is a common, and sometimes fatal, condition that has a number of possible causes.

My initial reaction to the video was one of disgust.  Then I watched it another half-dozen times and realized that while it is an artful piece of anti-racing propaganda, the actual evidence of wrongdoing is pretty thin.  The most serious allegations are those dealing with the employment law violations.  Then there is Blasi explaining how he will mask an injured horse by applying a covering gel the next time the state vet comes by before a race.  Stevens, who is one of the most public faces of racing from his acting and roles as a commentator on broadcasts, clearly doesn’t help.  Then there is the veterinarian describing Lasix as a performance-enhancing medication.

The video describes Lasix as a controversial medication and, of course, it is.  It is also the only race-day medication permitted in every state.  The frequent depiction of horses being injected is emotive, but there are a number of medications that can be administered legally to a race horse.  The video does not claim that any of the numerous injections are illegal, although that assertion is made in some of the written complaints.

But supporters of racing are deluding themselves if they think portraying PETA as biased makes the problem go away.  Let’s be honest.  We know horses are often given numerous medications and injections, and we also know that, at least in some instances, there is no medical justification for the drugs.  One of PETA’s allegations is that Asmussen’s staff gave Thyroxine to most, if not all, of the horses in the barn without need.  If that name sounds familiar, it’s because it is the same drug that Bob Baffert admitted giving to all his horses when California investigated the seven sudden and unexplained deaths of horses trained by him.  Baffert, who often had the medication given by barn staff and not a veterinarian, did not even understand the effect of the drug.

We also know that an investigation into a spike in fatalities at Aqueduct in 2012 led to a report by a Task Force that made numerous and significant recommendations on the practice of veterinary medicine at race tracks and the tightening of standards for administering drugs.  We know from a report in The New York Times that the nation’s leading trainer, Todd Pletcher, had one of his horses given 14 doses of drugs in the week before his fatal breakdown at Aqueduct.  Pletcher acknowledged to the Task Force that this “pre-race medication program … was standard practice for all of the horses in his stable.”

The video is lurid, even if lacking in specifics.  The ten complaints filed by PETA, however, provide more detail even if they do not create the same level of outrage.  Six complaints deal with the wage and hour violations.  The remaining complaints  –  with the possible exception of those relating to Nehro  –  may prove to be much more troubling for the industry as a whole.

PETA’s complaint to New York’s Gaming Commission makes two allegations.  One had to do with Blasi’s knowledge that a jockey used by Asmussen’s stable used an electric shock device or “machine,” although PETA explicitly states it had no knowledge of when such a device was used.

The second part of the complaint concerns the administration of Lasix.  PETA alleges that Lasix was given to all of Asmussen’s horses when they were scheduled to work or race, regardless of whether there was a need for the drug based on the horse having previously bled.  One veterinarian was quoted as saying the drug was given because it is a “performance enhancer.”  Additionally, there is an accusation that vets working for Asmussen would sign blank forms required by the state prior to administering Lasix.  The complaint alleges that barn staff would then fill in the horse’s name prior to a work or race.

In addition to the complaint filed with the Gaming Commission, PETA also filed with the New York board that licenses veterinarians, claiming that two vets used by Asmussen improperly administered drugs without medical justification, including Lasix, Sucralfate and Thyroxine.

Whether or not Asmussen’s staff or veterinarians violated the Lasix regulations is a much less consequential question than whether either of the New York regulatory agencies  –  or their counterpart in Kentucky  –  uses its authority to conduct a more sweeping probe.  It strains credulity to think that these practices are unique to Asmussen’s operation.   Saturday’s card at Aqueduct had 76 horses entered by 48 trainers.  How many of those 76 were to run with Lasix?  All but two  –  both first time starters.  Are we to assume that each of the 74 has a documented history by a veterinarian that it had bled during a race or workout  –  as required by New York’s regulations?  I doubt there are many knowledgeable race trackers who would take a short price on that proposition.

An investigation into whether drugs are being administered as part of a therapeutic regimen to treat a specific condition, rather than to enhance performance, could go a long way in dispelling the impressions left by the PETA video.  It would also bolster the arguments of some racing proponents that ours is an industry capable of self-regulation.

The racing industry is actually filled with numerous committed, knowledgeable and thoughtful people who truly care about the sport and the well-being of its equine and human participants.  I got a chance to meet a number of them at those seminars in Saratoga last summer and was quite impressed.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about those who actually control the racing at major tracks.  New York is run by inept political appointees, Churchill Downs seems preoccupied by how much money they can extract from the Kentucky Derby, and Santa Anita and Gulfstream are owned by Frank Stronach.  When a NYRA Board meeting is obsessed by the quality of the service at the Aqueduct restaurant instead of a serious issue, it is clearly a group that simply does not get it.

The NYRA Board members always nod in unison when someone observes that the public’s perception of racing is ruined by the one bad apple using drugs illegally.  Yet, we have Hall of Fame trainer Baffert acknowledging ignorance of the effects of a drug he gave to all his horses, and certain Hall of Fame trainer Pletcher administering a cornucopia of medications to a horse who then suffers a catastrophic breakdown.  And Asmussen was on this year’s Hall of Fame ballot until the PETA story broke and the Hall removed his name from nomination.

The question for the racing industry, of course, is where do we go from here?  Unfortunately, there seems to be two likely possibilities, although they are not mutually exclusive.  One is that the continuing cascade of negative media attention will further erode the sport’s popularity.  That one appears to be inevitable without some significant action.  When The Atlantic runs with the PETA story  –  in a compelling piece by Andrew Cohen  – you should know you are in trouble.

The other is that the PETA video, despite its obvious flaws, will become a powerful incentive for governmental action.  There’s a reason for the old saw, “a picture is worth a thousand words.”  Already there is legislation in Congress to place the United States Anti-Doping Agency in an oversight role for racing.  Federal prosecutors in Pennsylvania have brought criminal wire fraud charges against three trainers for either illegally administering drugs or simply possessing syringes and impermissible drugs.  And now, ten government agencies will be investigating the actions of Asmussen, Blasi and their veterinarians.

Perhaps the most common proposal is for a national organization with a commissioner akin to what we have in other major sports.  Charles Hayward, former head of NYRA and now the President of the new on-line publication Thoroughbred Racing Commentary, seems prescient in addressing this issue just over a week ago.  For reasons that are distressingly compelling, he cites the major impediments to that happening here.  Yet he does provide a possible solution in the experience in Britain with their racing authority.

I think Hayward is correct in saying that an all-encompassing organization that controls everything from marketing to licensing rights to drug regulations is too much to hope for right now.  But a necessary and useful first step would be a consensus on medication policies with a national drug czar, even if his or her authority is limited initially to operating from a bully pulpit.  If it is not one selected by the racing industry, it could well be one picked by the federal government.

Iowa court decision – media blows it

Posted by noonante on July 13, 2013
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

In our ongoing series, here is reason #471 why the media is held in such disrepute.  As I went through Saturday’s news headlines, I was outraged by the decision from the Iowa Supreme Court upholding the firing of a dental assistant because she was “too attractive” and the dentist “worried he would try to start an affair.”  The notion that a woman would be deprived of her livelihood because of potential misbehavior by her boss kind of violated my sense of fair treatment.

Then I read the opinion of the court which you can read here.  It turns out that the assistant was not fired for either reason.  She was fired because the wife of the dentist uncovered the extent of the personal relationship between her husband and the assistant  –  although she probably did not uncover the full extent until depositions.  She then demanded the assistant be fired in the interests of preserving their marriage.

The dentist and the assistant had a personal relationship that carried over to non-work hours, although nothing in the court’s opinion would suggest that it went beyond a friendship.  While the two engaged in colloquy that could have been the basis for a complaint of sexual harassment, the relationship was consensual with the assistant never objecting to some of the more colorful comments by her boss.  One such example would be the dentist informing her that “if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing.”

The sole basis for the court’s opinion was whether “a male employer [can] terminate a long-time female employee because the employer’s wife, due to no fault of the employee, is concerned about the nature of the relationship between the employer and the employee.”  Nothing about either her appearance or his fear he may sometime want an affair.  (Indeed, a justice concurring in the opinion observed that “an employer cannot legally fire an employee simply because the employer finds the employee too attractive.” )

The reality of the court’s decision, of course, would not make for as interesting a headline as many media outlets (including The Paper of Record) used in describing this case, many based an a report by the Associated Press.  I am afraid we can also now expect a flurry of uninformed commentary from those on both the left and the right who cannot resist what appears to be a juicy controversy.  But it’s not the Sean Hannity’s of the world who worry me.  It is The New York Times.  If respect for government institutions is at an all-time low  –  for some understandable reasons  –  falsely portraying a well-reasoned court opinion does not serve the interests of those who think there should be a modicum of respect for those institutions.

NCAA’s hypocrisy on Penn State is breathtaking

Posted by noonante on August 8, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

“Football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people.”

One sometimes hears or reads a statement that is so preposterous on its face that you wonder if the person making the utterance could keep a straight face.  That’s the way I reacted when I read that New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo stated that state government should take control of horse racing to fix what are still  –  three months later  –  unidentified problems.  This particular statement was made by Mark Emmert, President of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, in announcing stringent sanctions against Pennsylvania State University for its handling of allegations of sexual abuse of minors by a former assistant football coach.  Now, I do not dispute the need for severe sanctions against a college where the highest officials, including the University President as well as Head Football Coach, the widely revered Joe Paterno, did nothing to prevent a serial pedophile from using both university facilities and his connection with the university to rape and sexually abuse minor boys.  Unless you are a member of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church  –  or, it seems Penn State  –  you know enough to report such matters to law enforcement, and certainly do not enable further such criminal behavior.

If Emmert left it at that, fine.  But he had to go into his most sanctimonious posture and pretend that something beyond protecting the NCAA “brand” was at stake.  Does he really mean that this action portends an NCAA that will place “educating” athletes above the enormous revenues generated by football and basketball programs?  Or that the “nurturing” of young men and women will mean the NCAA will no longer enforce ridiculous rules that prevent said youngsters from continuing their educations in the event their athletic coach takes away a scholarship for reasons unrelated to misconduct?   Perhaps Emmert’s sudden high-minded approach to the well-being of young people means that the NCAA will take the lead in eliminating the concussions experienced by so many football players (and other athletes) that can have such devastating life-long consequences.  If they are serious about reforming the NCAA, they could start by responding to Civil Rights historian Taylor Branch’s piece in The Atlantic on the NCAA’s systemic exploitation of athletes, or to some of Joe Nocera’s columns in The New York Times, one example of which is here, in which he excoriated the NCAA’s abuse  –  albeit through bureaucratic mindlessness  –  of the “student-athletes” they claim to represent.

In a New York Times puff piece on Emmert accompanying their coverage of the sanctions, they cited sources “close to him” about the frustrations he had experienced in “enacting change in college athletics.”  They proceeded to quote him as saying that the NCAA’s “membership, especially the presidential leadership, has done an extraordinary job … addressing some of the core problems that we have.”  (Emphasis mine.)  Let’s ignore Emmert’s referring to himself not only in the third person, but using a phrase that may lead one to think he is talking about Barack Obama.  One of the “core problems” we think Emmert is referencing is the “failure of institutional integrity leading to a culture in which a football program was held in higher esteem than the values of the institution [and] the values of higher education.”  Those are the words from the consent decree between the NCAA and Penn State that was signed by Emmert.

So how did Emmert himself promote those values when he was at a university?  According to the Times‘ puff piece, when he was chancellor at Louisiana State University,  he was “instrumental in hiring Nick Saban, who led the Tigers football team to the 2003 national title.”  For those not familiar with college football, the same Nick Saban could very well be the poster boy for the imbalance between a football program and the values of an educational institution.  His current employer, the University of Alabama, pays him the tidy sum of $4.7 million  plus a potential bonus of $700,000 that he probably received when he led Alabama to this year’s national title.  Lest you think that is unrelated to the mission of a publically-funded college, Chancellor Emmert would inform you, again according to the Times, that LSU’s success on the gridiron allowed him to “put a story about their physics program in the sports section.”  As a long-time fan of college football, I can attest that when I think of LSU, I am thinking about quantum mechanics along with Billy Cannon.

Emmert’s success promoting LSU’s physics program led him to the presidency of the University of Washington.  How much does Washington pay its football coach?  According to USA Today‘s College Football Coach’s Salary Database from 2006-11, the Huskies’ mentor receives a piddling $2.2 million with the possibility of a million-dollar bonus.  Since the Penn State resolution will ensure that “football will never again be placed ahead of educating … young people,” the coaches at the following institutions are probably in for significant salary cuts:  Texas, $5.2 million;  Auburn, $3.5 million;  Iowa, $3.8 million;  Michigan, $3.3 million;  Oregon, $2.8 million;  LSU, $3.8 million;  Florida, $3.2 million;  and, Oklahoma, $4 million.  (All salary figures are from USA Today and omit bonuses.)  You may note that each of these institutions is a taxpayer-funded public entity.  Private ones, for the most part, are not included in the database.

We can also assume that the NCAA’s newfound zeal for education-over-athletics will carry over to the basketball programs.  So Kentucky’s John Calipari, who had teams at two different state universities retroactively removed from their Final Four appearances, will no longer blatantly (as he acknowledges) recruit blue-chip high school players to attend UK for a year before moving on to the NBA so Kentucky can win the NCAA championship, as it did this year.

I cannot let a piece on hypocrisy go by without acknowledging that I am a long-time fan of both college football and basketball, and attended a university that has had its share of scandals in the basketball program (and pays its football coach $1 million per year).  I agree with the NCAA that Penn State is deserving of severe penalties (although they will be appearing on television, and the football scholarships are being reduced to “only” 15 per year for a limited period).  But let’s be honest.  The NCAA’s sanctions are merely an effort to get past a major scandal, and do not portend a change in attitude to athletic programs that measure national TV revenues in the billions, and care not a whit about the educational experiences of so-called “student athletes.”  While Penn State can be accused justifiably of “protecting its brand” in its approach to Jerry Sandusky, the same can be said about the NCAA, even if the NCAA is not guilty of protecting and enabling criminal behavior.

And we should not forget those who enable the distortion between football or basketball programs and the actual purpose of a university.  We can look down our collective noses at the Penn State students who were so upset about the sanctions leveled against the university, but behind each of those students is a university administrator, member of the Board of Trustees, or a contribution-giving alumnus.  When the Boston-based radio program On Point devoted an hour to the Penn State sanctions on July 24, one of the participants was Dan Beebe, a former commissioner of the Big 12 conference who became an investigator for the NCAA.  When discussing the lack of a proper perspective on college sports, he described receiving calls from United States Senators complaining about calls by a referee.  He expressed his satisfaction that the issues confronting our nation were in such good shape that members of the world’s greatest deliberative body could devote time to a call in a game.

Do we need tougher financial regulation?

Posted by noonante on July 13, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

These are headlines from today’s front page of The New York Times‘ Business Page:

  • Geithner Tried to Curb Bank’s Rate Rigging in 2008
  • Internal Failures [money laundering] Disclosed At HSBC
  • At Peregrine Financial, Signs of Trouble [$215 million missing] Seemingly Missed for Years

These are not from the police blotter, but just today’s news from the financial sector.  Mitt Romney thinks we need even fewer controls over our financial institutions, despite headlines such as these, the Libor scandal, and the terrifying news from the 2008 economic collapse involving  –  of course  –  some of these same players.