“With friends like these….”

Posted by noonante on May 1, 2023
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

The long-awaited national program addressing drugs in horse racing with uniform rules and enforcement was implemented on Monday, March 27. Because of legal action filed by opponents of the new law, an injunction was issued and the federal agency overseeing it suspended it until May 22. While in effect for five days, the world did not come to an end in spite of the fear-mongering and apocalyptic rhetoric of those denying the evident need for reform in racing.

Leading the opposition over the years have been organizations such as the National Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective Association, some individual state HBPA’s and the Association of Racing Commissioners International. While their legal objections focus on the purported unconstitutionality of the Congressional legislation — the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act — the quarterly publication of the NHBPA I received recently presents different concerns.

An article by Tom Law and Jennie Rees in something called The Horsemen’s Journal has the sub-heading “Overreach of [HISA] permeates the horsemen’s gathering” of the first-ever (!!!) national meeting of the NHBPA and ARCI. It provides a wealth of comments by those opposing the law and none from anyone thinking reform is long overdue. Their opening sentence summarizes the tone of the sessions succinctly, referring to “discussions offering critiques and alternatives to costly federal regulations wreaking havoc throughout the Thoroughbred industry.”

Their so-called “alternatives” are both fanciful and delusional. They do not propose alternatives to the detailed regulations of HISA concerning either track safety or medication protocols, but rather — brace yourself — voluntary interstate compacts. The NHBPA’s General Counsel said such compacts allow for “responsive and quick resolution.”

There was no explanation for why their perceived obvious and meritorious solution had not been achieved in the more than two years since HISA became law, let alone since the NHBPA establishment in 1940 nor ARCI’s creation in 1934. There are, however, two possibilities. One is that neither organization sees the need for change. The other is that neither group truly represents the racing community beyond their own parochial interests.

While the NHBPA has the word “national” in its title, it consists only of “affiliate” organizations throughout the country, but not necessarily representative groups. Among the major racetracks not included are those in California, New Jersey, Maryland, the NYRA tracks and Gulfstream Park. They make no effort to solicit input from individual horse people. Indeed, this publication neither solicits opinion nor publishes views that detract from their party line.

The ARCI consists of racing commissions. While one panelist observed: “The bedrock concept of what curbs regulators is the fact that there’s transparency, there’s accountability. And HISA lacks that.” While that comment is from an attorney, he is not stating “facts,” but rather opinion. He obviously has never witnessed a session of the New York State Gaming Commission whose actions and “public” meetings are neither transparent nor accountable.

The only other state commission I am familiar with is that of California. Their public meetings are indeed public and sometimes lengthy (one lasted seven hours). Following a raft of breakdowns in 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom overhauled the Horse Racing Board that then came up with a number of positive changes improving the safety conditions for horses and humans. They have fully embraced the HISA reforms.

Other comments from the panelists were almost completely devoid of substance. One, from a “pro bono” law firm was almost Zen-like: “Uniformity should exist across jurisdictions, but uniformity should also exist across time.”

And despite all the fake concern about Constitutional standards, the bulk of the criticisms of HISA and the law were based mostly on personal grievances or imaginary issues. When they complain about horse people not being consulted, they mean they were not. The NHBPA CEO Eric Hamelback expressed it: “[W]e want to make sure the right participants are helping to make the decisions. I see it as the right participants are in this room.” In the decades I have been among the horse people they purport to speak for, I have never had my views solicited. Nor can I vote for officers, even though that is something I do in New York’s (unaffiliated) horse persons’ group NYTHA.

The hollowness, indeed, absurdity of the objections of the group were never better highlighted than in an issue of The Paulick Report where the Attorney General of Louisiana opined in an op-ed that “Louisiana horse racing has effectively policed itself for over 200 years” and did not need intervention.

While that comment undoubtedly raised many an eyebrow among horseplayers and observers of Louisiana politics, it ran alongside a report that State Police searching a trainer’s tack room at Delta Downs (in said state of Louisiana) had discovered “59 bottles of injectable medications, 352 hypodermic needles, 256 syringes and 75 packs of Albuterol Sulfate inhalation solution.” These items are considered “contraband,” yet a six-month suspension was stayed by the Louisiana Racing Commission pending appeals.

While AG Greg Landry, the state’s chief law enforcement officer, may cite this as an example of his state’s oversight of racing, we do not know how he would respond to the information that the trainer in question, James Tracy, was licensed by the Racing Commission even though he was under an indefinite suspension by Pennsylvania. As Paulick observed in a subsequent report:  “so much for reciprocity from one racing state to another” — as required under existing requirements. Landry’s piece was featured prominently in this issue of The Horsemen’s Journal.

Landry and another opponent of the new law, Kentucky’s HBPA President Rick Hiles, prefer to raise imaginary problems rather than address substantive ones. A common object of their attacks are the “billionaires” supporting HISA who as Hines stated, are the “powerful and well-financed minority backing HISA [who] opted for class warfare.” Yet Hines cannot even keep straight what his complaint is. While complaining that the NHBPA and ARCI were not “invited to the table” discussing reforms, he boasts that the efforts of those groups have forced HISA “to make substantial improvements.”

Are there issues with HISA? Of course there are. They are attempting to implement a federal law intended to overhaul the conduct of a sport that many of its participants believe is in drastic need to not just improve but survive. The drivel that emanated from this joint conference of self-appointed representatives not only did nothing to move that ball forward, but their distorted view of “success” would jeopardize racing’s future.

Is HISA already unraveling?

Posted by noonante on January 4, 2022
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics, Uncategorized. Tagged: , . Leave a comment

I’ll leave the punchlines for others. A year ago, Donald Trump, who at the time was President of the United States, signed legislation that was the most significant step ever to reform horse racing with its numerous failings. A year later that law may have hit a major roadblock, and Trump had nothing to do with it.


Last week, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) “suspended” their negotiations to have USADA become the independent enforcement body to implement the federal law (also known as HISA) mandating a national medication control program.

Just two weeks after the shocking news that Medina Spirit suddenly died following a workout at Santa Anita — with the attendant coverage on yet another existential threat to horse racing — we faced an event that has the potential to become even more devastating. For the many in the racing community who have advocated a dramatic overhaul to racing’s inconsistent, if not mostly meaningless, anti-doping regime, the announcement that USADA was not only named in the federal law, but was willing to take on the role, came as that rare ray of hope.

USADA is the gold standard for identifying and policing medication violations. It is the agency that brought down Lance Armstrong and cleaned up world-class cycling, the sport that may well have been the most notorious sport in the world for drug violations. It even cleaned up the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Horse racing, of course, presents a much more complicated environment than either of those given that in this country there are three dozen separate jurisdictions and thousands of participants.

I am not the only person who fears that the failure of HISA to reform significantly racing means that its demise is inevitable. That is why it is absolutely essential that both USADA and HISA publicly state the reasons for the breakdown in their negotiations.

I realize that negotiations on any matter are traditionally conducted with a veil of confidentially — and there are good reasons for that. In most disputes, the parties have bargaining positions that may involve proprietary information that could harm a competitive advantage. Or the issues are such that disclosure of bargaining positions could harm their public image.

But the negotiations involving the future of racing — and that is what we are talking about — are not typical. For one reason, neither USADA nor the HISA board have an actual interest in the outcome. USADA is valuable because they are independent. The majority of the HISA board are barred by the conflict-of-interest provisions of the HISA law from having an interest in any aspect of racing — and that is one of the strong points of the legislation.

But I am a person who does have an actual interest in the negotiations by virtue of the statute including me as a “covered person.” Me and the thousands of others who are “covered persons” by virtue of being a trainer, owner, breeder, jockey, racetrack, veterinarian or a person licensed by a state racing commission. We are not taking part in the negotiations even though they will have a direct and substantial impact on our participation in the sport.

And there are other parties that may not have a financial interest, but nonetheless have a considerable stake in the outcome of these talks. There are fans of racing — both current and those who could become fans if they think the sport is clean. And, of course, there are the horses, whose well-being is literally at stake.

The USADA statement announcing the suspension of negotiations contains language that is ominous in its import for the anti-doping program:

“…we have been unable to enter an agreement in line with the requirements of the Act, and one which would have given us a reasonable chance to put in place a credible and effective program…. we desperately tried to reach an agreement to implement the program, without compromising our values….”

(Emphasis is mine.)

USADA’s cautionary language strongly suggests that the breakdown in negotiations could be the result of differences that would completely undermine the integrity and public confidence in a resultant program. While a strong anti-doping program is absolutely essential, so too is the transparency that has been sorely lacking throughout the many jurisdictions now controlling racing. The HISA board and USADA owe those interested in racing a complete and thorough explanation that has been lacking in the 13 days since the announcement that negotiations had been suspended.

A growing sense of owner responsibility?

Posted by noonante on December 23, 2021
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , . 1 Comment

There may not be many silver linings to a once-prominent trainer being sentenced to five years in a federal prison for doping violations or to the ongoing saga of Bob Baffert and Medina Spirit. But one salutary aspect appears to be a growing sense that it is not just trainers and veterinarians who bear sole responsibility for drug violations but owners as well. While that may obvious, so far there have been no legal consequences for owners other than losing a purse following a medication violation.

That may finally be changing. Last week two prominent racing media sites have singled out one owner for using a trainer with a history of multiple drug violations. I have a great deal of respect for The Paulick Report and Thoroughbred Daily News for their coverage of horse welfare issues, particularly when it comes to medication matters. The owner referenced is Joe Appelbaum who used Jose C. Vazquez as a trainer. Appelbaum is a significant figure in horse racing as the President of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association. But he is not even remotely in the same league as the more prominent owners who time and again entrust their horses with questionable trainers.

Appelbaum was pilloried for his racing operation, Off The Hook, using Vazquez as its trainer. I do not know either Appelbaum or Vazquez personally, and was frankly not aware of Vazquez’ reputation. So I went to the database thoroughbredrulings.com to ascertain his record. I only looked at the past four years and learned that Vazquez was listed in multiple rulings by state racing authorities, many of which can be categorized as minor or paperwork infractions. Five, however, were for medication positives over that period of time. He was also denied a license by the New York State Gaming Commission on April 18, 2018, without a detailed explanation for the reason. Since he is now racing in New York, the license was subsequently granted, again without any stated reason, vague or otherwise.

I asked NYTHA for a response to the Paulick and TDN reports and received an answer from Appelbaum directly. (It is not clear to me that either Paulick or TDN sought a comment from him.) While recognizing that the criticism of him could be valid for giving Vazquez a “second chance,” he also acknowledges that he is held to a higher standard. He has now transferred their horse to a new trainer, following an “independent veterinary screening (including blood work).”

As I said, I know nothing of Vazquez. I am leery of ascribing negative connotations to anyone based on rumors or reputation. Since 2018, while Vazquez has been cited for five medication violations, there have been none since February 27, 2020. Coincidentally, Bob Baffert has had five violations in the one year commencing May 1, 2020, working for some of the most prominent owners in the business.

In his statement to me, Joe Appelbaum accepted responsibility for retaining Vazquez. He also responded to my query promptly (within hours on a Friday afternoon) and exhibited the transparency that is so rare in racing. Would that New York’s State Gaming Commission had the same level of accountability. After all, they granted Vazquez a license after denying him with no meaningful explanation in early 2018.

Racing has plenty of room for examining the accountability of owners as I argued in this post about owners much more prominent than Joe Appelbaum. And it must be done with transparency.

As Appelbaum concluded in his response to me, “[M]aybe we should each ask ourselves; What have I done for the welfare of our horses?”

What about “owner responsibility?”

Posted by noonante on August 26, 2021
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , , . 3 Comments

A universal concept in regulating horse racing is “trainer responsibility.” When it comes to issues of behavior including, for example, drug positives, the trainer is held strictly responsible for what transpires in his or her barn.

Bob Baffert could well be the poster child for those who oppose that concept in both theory and practice. He has rarely accepted responsibility for his horses testing positive, most recently and notably, with Churchill Downs’ determination that Derby “winner” Medina Spirit had an impermissible medication in his system during the race. Baffert first denied that the medication had been administered to the horse and, when it became apparent it had, is now seeking to invalidate the plain meaning of Kentucky’s medication regulations.

There are sound reasons for holding a trainer to strict liability. The most common excuse advanced by trainers is “environmental contamination.” While I do not dispute that it sometimes occurs, here are Baffert’s excuses for his five positives in just the year leading up to this year’s Derby: lidocaine patch on his assistant trainer’s back (two horses); groom taking cough syrup who urinated in a stall; and, of course, the prohibited betamethasone that was contained on a patch applied to Medina Spirit to deal with a skin irritation.

But what about the responsibility of owners? There is a sense among some racing fans — and I wish I could say a “growing sense” — that owners bear at least some responsibility for the conduct of trainers they select for their horses. When trainers Jason Servis and Jorge Navarro were indicted, along with veterinarians and pharmaceutical sellers, in March of 2020 for federal offenses related to illegal drugs, there was a common refrain of “everyone in racing knows these trainers are dirty.” But they were not the only trainers with suspiciously high win rates or remarkable form improvements when a horse was transferred to their barn.

It is one thing for a newcomer to the sport to be unaware of concerning trends. But what about those who have been in the game for a long time? And it is not just the abuse of drugs I am bothered by, but other aspects of horse welfare and safety.

A horse entered in Saratoga’s 8th race last Saturday brings all of these threads together. Restoring Hope is a six-year old horse bred and owned by Gary and Mary West. The Wests have been long-time participants in racing. Their initial trainer for this horse was Bob Baffert who trained the horse for his third-place finish in Aqueduct’s main Kentucky Derby prep, the Grade II Wood Memorial, in 2018. After two dismal performances in graded stakes, Jason Servis took over the training in 2019 following a break of almost 10 months. Following three decent performances at the optional claiming level over six months (where he was not entered for a tag), he was given another break, again of almost 10 months. Over the next eleven months and three races — and two additional trainers — the horse did not hit the board and earned only $5,700. His Beyers for those three outings were 68, 64 and 75. In his last start he raced with front bandages, often a sign of leg soreness.

So following a racing career covering parts of five years and almost a quarter of a million dollars in earnings, the well-heeled Wests were looking for either a piece of a small purse or perhaps someone to claim their home-bred, and entered him in a $35,000 claiming race. Mercifully, the veterinarian conducting the pre-race examination scratched the horse. It may have been an issue not detected by the barn, or a result of heightened scrutiny from examining the horse’s racing record.

Perhaps the Wests need the money since I do not think they have received their share of the purse from Maximum Security’s first-place finish in the $20 million Saudi Cup. The purse has been withheld since trainer Jason Servis’ indictment on illegal drug charges by the federal government. When Saudi Arabia becomes a moral compass on anything, we are in trouble. And we do not know what the Wests knew about the drug histories of either Servis or Bob Baffert when they retained them.

What we do know, however, is that they were willing to risk a horse who may have been injured, but was definitely well past his prime, for what would be a mere pittance to those of the Wests financial stature. But hoping to make a few bucks never justifies risking the health or life of a horse, regardless of one’s financial need. David O’Rourke, President and CEO of NYRA, has said that “protecting the horse” is one of his top priorities. It should also be the top priority of all owners, whether that means keeping their horses away from questionable trainers, or not placing them in potential harm’s way when there are red flags.

There is an expression among those active in the aftercare of racehorses of not “giving them one last race,” but rather stopping on them before it is to late for the animal’s well-being. It is a lesson that the Wests clearly do not practice.

When will NYRA step up on the pandemic?

Posted by noonante on August 10, 2021
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Saratoga thoughts. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

When even elected Republican leaders are starting to get religion on dealing with the increasing spread of Covid-19, how long will NYRA continue to ignore it? As I wrote in this post, NYRA had initially planned to separate the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, but changed prior to the open of Saratoga in favor of a policy of trusting the irresponsible to become responsible so they could get down on the double. So the track was open to all, with no restrictions, as if the virus were no longer a threat.

But the Delta variant of the virus has become an increasing threat both because of its higher level of transmissibility and the more serious consequences if one contracts it. According to the Albany Times Union, Saratoga County now is rated “high” in its level of community transmission. This prompted the county’s Public Health Services to recommend “that all people — whether fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, or unvaccinated — wear a mask when … outdoors in crowded settings, and when engaging in activities that involve close contact with others who are not fully vaccinated.”

That sounds like a description of the rail on Whitney Day where the crowds were 10, 15 or 20 people deep, almost none of whom were wearing masks. With some 70 per cent of vaccinated folks in Saratoga, that would indicate the odds were that one of every three in that crowd were not vaccinated.

While this may not put Saratoga on the same level as a super spreader event as the Sturgis motorcycle rally, it doesn’t require a hundred thousand people for you to get the virus, it only requires one. NYRA is apparently content with doing nothing to minimize the risk of spreading a deadly infection.

Baffert court decision is a mixed bag

Posted by noonante on July 19, 2021
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

Wednesday’s court decision enjoining the New York Racing Association from banning Bob Baffert from racing or stabling at its facilities, including Saratoga, came as a major disappointment to the many racing fans hoping the trainer would finally face some accountability. While it is a short-term victory for the Baffert camp, the longer range implications are more troublesome for them.

NYRA suspended Baffert following the announcement that alleged Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit had tested positive for betamethasone, a medication prohibited in post-race tests in Kentucky. It was the fifth drug positive for a Baffert-trained horse in just one year, including three in Grade I races and a disqualification of Gamine — for the same drug — in last year’s Kentucky Oaks. Churchill Downs has suspended Baffert for two years from running at its track, although the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has not yet made a final determination on this year’s Derby.

I am among those hoping that NYRA’s suspension would finally bring a measure of accountability to a trainer whose smug disregard of racing’s rules stands in stark contrast to the many top trainers who are able to win without cheating. When I praised NYRA in this post, I was writing as a fan. Unfortunately, my background as a lawyer, including experience with due process cases, should have informed me that the NYRA decision was problematic.

The United States District Court judge considering the case wrote an informed and comprehensive decision, and did it against a timeline of the Saratoga meet about to begin. The hearing in the case was Monday, and within two days she had issued a 28-page well-reasoned opinion.

The purpose of an injunction is to retain the status quo in a dispute while the merits of the case are litigated, utilizing the procedures designed to reach a just and informed decision. It is not a final decision on the underlying merits of NYRA’s suspension, but practically it is final on the more limited question of whether NYRA must give Baffert a hearing on whether he should be suspended.

Baffert’s attorneys argued that NYRA is a “state actor” and, as such, could not deprive Baffert of his right to participate at NYRA facilities without affording him the “due process” right of a hearing as guaranteed by the United States’ Constitution. NYRA argued that it was a private, not public, entity and could act as Churchill Downs did in barring Baffert without a hearing. Baffert further argued that only the New York Gaming Commission had the authority to suspend Baffert, and that NYRA had no such ability.

While the Court concluded that NYRA was indeed a state actor and subject to the requirements of the Constitution’s due process provisions, it also decided NYRA had the authority on its own to take action against Baffert: “it is not likely that Baffert will be able to prevail on his claim that NYRA had no legal authority to take the action that it did.” This represents a major defeat for Baffert.

It is not surprising that Baffert’s attorneys sought to get the case into the Gaming Commission. This body is not what would be considered the one of the world’s greatest deliberative bodies. It has been mulling over possible changes to the usage of the whip since 2015 (sic) and in October, 2020, had a special meeting to resolve the matter — as so many other jurisdictions have done (albeit not uniformly). They are now approaching six years without doing anything since they first decided to do so. It can take years to resolve trainer disciplinary matters. If Baffert’s attorneys ever listened to one of the body’s eight-minute long meetings disposing of a half-dozen agenda items with no discussion they had to salivate over the possibility of getting his case there.

As unsurprising as the effort by Baffert to get the case to the moribund Gaming Commission was, it is puzzling why NYRA’s attorney sought to deny Baffert any form of a due process hearing. In a case as fiercely contested case as this one is, the easy out for a court — and I am not suggesting that was this Court’s motivation — is to require a hearing and later decide whether a suspension is justified without a claim of deprivation of a constitutional right clouding the important matter.

So NYRA should give Baffert a notice with specific charges and then schedule a hearing. While they may have been averse to a hearing for reasons that escape me, putting Baffert under oath on this and prior transgressions has its own benefit. As just one example of a possibly fruitful avenue of inquiry — and one that is clearly relevant — is the level of scrutiny he applies to treatments by veterinarians.

Baffert has escaped meaningful consequences for far too long. The Washington Post detailed the efforts he has undertaken over the years to minimize his transgressions. That he has become the face of horse racing is a great disservice to the trainers and owners who have tried to do the right thing. It also jeopardizes the livelihoods of the many thousands of individuals who are dependent on the racing industry and have no connection to his behavior or that of other industry scofflaws.

Baffert, Covid and NYRA

Posted by noonante on July 8, 2021
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

The New York Racing Association is to be commended for their actions in barring Bob Baffert from entering races or stabling at NYRA tracks including Saratoga Race Course. In its legal brief opposing Baffert’s motion for an injunction, NYRA encapsulated its position succinctly:

“Medina Spirit’s positive test marked the fifth time in the past year that a horse trained by Plaintiff tested positive for drugs, with the prior four drug-related violations culminating in fines imposed for regulators in three states. Rarely in the history of the sport has there been such a confluence of drug positives involving so prominent a trainer as Plaintiff.” (Emphasis in original.)

It may be long overdue, but race tracks are clearly wearying of Baffert’s standard shenanigans. When Churchill Downs barred him from racing there for two years, it cited his “increasingly extraordinary explanations” for his spate of positives. The NYRA brief noted his “history of drug-related violations” and his “contradictory statements” on the Medina Spirit positive.

It perhaps also reflects a realization that racing has nothing to gain from retaining Baffert. He has for many become the face of racing. That is partly a reflection of his success in the Kentucky Derby and his attraction to all forms of media. It is also, most regrettably, the reality that there is no other national face of racing. Quick — who becomes racing’s face if we should be so lucky as to never have to deal with Baffert again?

We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the drug for which Medina Spirit (and last year’s Kentucky Oaks filly Gamine) tested positive is betamethasone. The veterinarian cited in NYRA’s brief testified that the medication’s “ability to mask injuries can lead to ‘catastrophic injury,'” resulting in safety issues for both the horse and the jockey. It also compromises the public perception of the fairness of the race and the integrity of the sport.

As much regard as I have for NYRA’s leadership position in banning Baffert, albeit perhaps only temporarily, it does not carry over to their constant reluctance to be transparent on other issues. The Daily Racing Form‘s Matt Hegarty reported that NYRA had banned a veterinarian, whose clients include some of New York’s top trainers, from Belmont Park on Thursday recently, but reinstated him the next day. NYRA’s spokesperson “declined to offer details about the reason behind the decision.” Perhaps when you have your lawyers arguing in court about the importance of the public’s confidence in the integrity of your operations, you owe that public a fuller explanation. This is particularly so when the biggest non-Baffert racing story are the federal indictments of two formerly prominent trainers and several veterinarians being tried in the federal court a short hop from your New York base.

Then there is NYRA’s approach to dealing this year with the pandemic and Saratoga’s upcoming meeting. Last summer, of course, racing went on but spectators were not permitted. This year, it is back to full capacity with no real restrictions related to the deadly Covid-19 disease. I understand that Governor Andrew Cuomo will pull out the stops to distract from aspects of his mishandling of Covid, as well as multiple allegations of sexual harassment, but his latest victory tour (following his book debacle) smacks more of desperation than sound public health policy. I mean having fireworks displays to “celebrate” the ending of most restrictions when some of those fireworks are exploding over the sites where as recently as May corpses were still being stored in refrigerated trucks is more than tasteless.

The original plan was to have separate areas for the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, with proof of vaccination required if one wanted to go to the vaccinated areas. That seemed to make sense and serves both a protection for individuals with compromised health issues and an inducement to get vaccinated.

That’s now gone, and those who are not vaccinated will be “encouraged” to wear a mask. Uh-huh. I am guessing that unvaccinated people include a high percentage of those who have refused to wear a mask since this began early last year. According to the Governor’s figures last Friday, 64.6 per cent of New Yorkers (18 and over) have completed their vaccine regiment, and 70 per cent (18 and over) will have started.

What that means is that if you go the races at Saratoga this summer, one of every three persons you encounter will not be vaccinated. Now I understand there are a number of people who have not been vaccinated because of access issues (such as unable to get to a site) or have workplace issues (such as an inability to get time off). It seems obvious, however, that if you are at a racetrack in Saratoga Springs and are not vaccinated, those access issues do not apply to you. So we are left with those who have health conditions preventing them from getting a vaccine, and those without any sense of personal or civic responsibility. And one of three people you encounter is in that group. And I suspect that few health-compromised individuals will risk the high rate of exposure from encountering the irresponsible.

But why should anyone unwittingly expose themselves to persons so irresponsible as to not get a vaccine that protects both them and their community from infection? It is surprising that a state that rightfully can be proud of its response to reducing the risk over the past 16 months is now willing to throw that away on the mistaken view that everything is fine and back to “normal.”

Racing hits mainstream media

Posted by noonante on June 24, 2021
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

When horse racing makes the mainstream media it is for one of four reasons: a) Kentucky Derby result; b) drugs; c) fatalities; d) corruption. Recent articles in The New Yorker and The Washington Post were able to hit all four areas. I trust it goes without saying that three of those will not present a positive view of racing. Only the Derby tends to be positive, but as both articles point out, there are elements of the other three in this year’s event.

A concept I have only recently become familiar with is racing’s “license to operate.” It is the notion that only public acceptance of an activity will allow it to continue. Thus, greyhound racing is becoming extinct, circuses are no longer exhibiting elephants, and aquatic exhibits are also disappearing. Only the most oblivious would think racing will escape this scrutiny.

That makes the portrayal of racing in mainstream media all the more important. Neither The New Yorker nor the Post are where one looks for horse racing coverage, so their prominent articles deserve a high level of concern. Even New York Magazine, which has a frivolous back page of “approvals,” identified Bob Baffert as the “shady face of horse racing.” Dr. Rick Arthur, the esteemed Equine Medical Director in California is quoted in The New Yorker: “The fate of racing will be decided by people who’ve never been to the races, know nothing about horses, have never even touched a racehorse.”

As a fan, owner and breeder, I would love to dismiss both of these pieces. But there is much that I cannot dispute factually, and with which I agree.

A unifying thread is trainer Bob Baffert who trained Medina Spirit, the seeming winner of the Derby until Baffert revealed that the colt tested positive for a medication in excess of the allowable limit in Kentucky, which is zero. It is not Baffert’s first brush with medication violations. Indeed, it was the fifth one in the space of a year, including three in Grade I stakes and one for the same drug, betamethasone, at the same track, Churchill Downs.

It is The New Yorker article, written by William Finnegan, that presents the most comprehensive look at the sport — indeed, it is entitled “Can Horse Racing Survive?” It begins with the fatal breakdown of Mongolian Groom in 2019 in the Breeders’ Cup Classic at Santa Anita in 2019. This marked the culmination of a rash of catastrophic breakdowns at Santa Anita that year that threatened the survival of racing in that state, if not in the country. That it happened in the second most important race in the country (along with the Derby) heightened its significance in terms of the sport’s perception.

The facile response of the public to breakdowns is the use of drugs. While drugs may certainly be one factor, catastrophic injuries can have several causes. One of those is the track surface itself, and that appears to be the most significant reason for the Santa Anita deaths. Southern California experienced unusually high rainfall that year. That not only requires maintenance crews to take remedial steps to mitigate the impact of the water, but the composition of the track surface itself can also be the issue. Saratoga Race Course in New York in the last two years has overhauled the composition of its main racing surface and the training track located across the street with a view to increasing safety.

What is not discussed in Finnegan’s piece, however, is that the track condition at Santa Anita, especially after all that rain, was not regarded as safe according to articles at the time, yet trainers continued to send their horses out. That would suggest that it was not the track condition per se that was the problem, but rather the behavior of trainers.

Another important issue in safety is the role of track management in seeking large fields. Field size is an important determinant of handle, and handle is an important determinant in a track’s bottom line. According to Finnegan, “a Santa Anita trainer publicly complained that she’d had trouble scratching a horse when she considered the track unsafe.” When New York had its own crisis with a rise in fatalities back in 2012, a similar concern was raised because scratches recommended by a veterinarian had to be approved by the racing office. That office had a vested interest in large fields as noted above. The solution was to transfer that responsibility to the veterinary office to avoid the conflict of interests.

But drugs have been the most pernicious threat to racing’s longevity and perception. That gets us to The Washington Post piece by Gus Garcia-Roberts and Steven Rich, appropriately titled “The dark side of Bob Baffert’s reign.” While major sports have a single figure who can be the spokesperson for it, racing has no such person. Instead, a trainer based in California has taken on an out-sized influence, a role he clearly relishes. Unfortunately, other than his success in major races, there is nothing to commend Baffert as a principled and honest figure. Indeed, Baffert may have evolved into yet another pernicious threat to racing’s survival.

Baffert’s telegenic personality and seemingly affable nature would appear to make him an ideal figure in a sport needing both public acceptance and growth. Yet as The New Yorker article asserts, his “career of breezy impunity” only deepens racing’s “disrepute among the general public.”

The initial revelation of the Kentucky Derby winner’s drug positive was revealed in a press conference he called in the barn at Churchill Downs where the horse was stabled. His approach was one akin to those of politicians from Donald Trump to Andrew Cuomo and many more in between. He denied that it happened because the horse was never treated with betamethasone; there were probably people out to get him; and the horse was a victim of “cancel culture” — seriously, he said that about an animal.

The depth of investigation by Baffert and his attorney was so extensive that neither knew what the appropriate threshold level is for betamethasone even though just eight months earlier another Baffert trainee not only tested positive but was disqualified from the most important race for three-year old fillies in the country — and cost the owners $121,250 in purse money.

Two days later he revealed that Medina Spirit had been treated with an ointment containing betamethasone for a skin irritation on a daily basis for some four weeks. Again, Baffert said he did not know about this and, apparently, no one on his staff was aware that he lost a significant purse for the same medication a few months ago in the same state.

Baffert’s defenses in these cases take on a familiar patter. First, he denies it. Then, he tries to blame someone else: lidocaine positives were because a long-time assistant had a patch for back pain, or it was someone taking cough medicine urinating in a stall. When he had a morphine (really) positive, it was because a stable hand was eating a poppy seed bagel near the horse. (That explains why I’ve been eating a half-dozen per day for several years now.)

Then he minimizes the violation. The argument made on the Medina Spirit positive is that the amount of betamethasone in the 50 milliliter sample is akin to a grain of sand in the ocean. That may be a compelling argument if that was the limit of the drug in the horse’s system, but as the highly-respected Dr. Mary Scollay points out, 50 milligrams is a small amount, but a horse can have 50,000 milliliters of blood in its body.

Baffert is also arguing that Kentucky’s regulation is intended to only address injectable drugs and not ointments, although there is no support for that position in the regulations.

A corollary of that argument — and one that he makes — is that the drug is not “performance-enhancing.” That is one of the two boilerplate defenses to drug positives (the other being “he loves his horses”). And it is one of the most disingenuous assertions pertaining to drugs in racing. There are three categories of equine drugs. One is the illegal medications that have no therapeutic benefit and are strictly performance-enhancing. The next are legal therapeutic medications that have no effect on a horse’s ability to train or race.

The third category, however, is in many ways the most troublesome because they can affect a horse’s training or racing. They are “legal” therapeutic medications, but can mask inflammation or pain. The result is to hide a problem that will not be picked up in a veterinary exam or, worse, result in the horse overextending itself because it cannot experience pain.

To “strengthen” the argument that such medications are not performance-enhancing, an additional common approach is to minimize the significance of the medication by equating it to over-the-counter medications for humans. One attorney claimed that Baffert’s 30 drug violations recorded by the Association of Racing Commissioners International should not be counted, according to the Post article, because they were akin to “coming to work with too much Advil in your system.”

But if you do not trust pharmacological opinions from an attorney, Natalie Voss of the Paulick Report reported one study on the effects of joint injections of betamethasone: “A major concern … is that horses may be able to return to racing before they are completely healed following an injury….” You know, just like Advil. And let’s not forget that Baffert’s Gamine was disqualified from the Kentucky Oaks because of a betamethasone positive, a finding he did not even contest.

While one would like to think this is an exhaustive, if not exhausting, list of problems, we also have the federal indictments of numerous individuals, including two high-profile trainers, the role of Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum who is credibly accused of kidnapping two of his daughters (one of whom has not been heard from in months), and the controversy (within racing, that is) on the use of whips.

There are steps being taken to address some of these issues. Were it not for increasing public scrutiny, I doubt how much progress would have been made despite the efforts of many responsible forces within the industry. The most significant of these is the passage of federal legislation, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, that will nationalize drug policies, including the administration of investigations and enforcement. That responsibility will be assumed by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the organization that freed bicycling from Lance Armstrong and that has cleaned up other sports, including track and field.

While HISA will significantly enhance uniformity in overseeing medications, there remains a major gap on all other issues affecting the sport, particularly on disciplinary matters. There is a sense that some trainers are “too big to fail,” with Baffert a prime example. The Washington Post article does an outstanding job of tracing Baffert’s career and how he has manipulated regulatory bodies and even California’s legislature to minimize any threat to his ability to carry on as he has all these years. Garcia-Roberts and Rich point out that despite Baffert’s multiple violations over the course of his career, in which he has earned over $300 million in purses, he has paid “roughly $20,000 in fines.” Let that one sink in.

The Post article includes a chart ranking California trainers by deaths per 1,000 starts in the state. Baffert tops the list with 8.30 fatalities per 1,000 starts. The article references a rash of unexplained deaths in Baffert’s barn. Seven horses died from unknown causes. It turns out that Baffert was mixing a medication called thyroxine in feed on a regular basis. When called on it, he gave a reason for doing so that was contrary to the purpose of the medication. The California Horse Racing Board could not determine whether the drug, although inappropriately administered, caused the fatalities.

But he is not the only high-profile trainer to get a pass on administering this particular medication. On a national network broadcast, Steve Asmussen acknowledged “feeding” his horses thyroxine as if it were a dietary supplement and not a powerful medicine. New York’s Gaming Commission fined him $10,000 for 58 violations at that year’s Saratoga meeting even though the minimum fine specified by their own regulations was three times that.

tSo racing has a number of difficult and troublesome issues. Progress is being made on many of these fronts although it is neither as fast or comprehensive as many would hope. But there are trainers, regulators, owners, breeders, national organizations and racing media figures who are working to improve the sport and get us away from the Bob Bafferts. Just a year ago, a federal anti-doping bill was given little chance of success and now there are people charged with implementing it.

One of the encouraging signs is The Thoroughbred Daily News, the one essential publication for the industry. Just yesterday, their weekly podcast The TDN Writers’ Room began with a segment on the dangers posed by the Baffert case, but ended (after the one-hour mark) with a vision for moving forward from Aron Wellman of Eclipse Thoroughbreds.

When I think of my favorite moment from racing, it is an event at Saratoga Race Course one morning in 2015. The New York Racing Association announced that American Pharoah, the first Triple Crown winner since 1978 would gallop around the track — not work, but just gallop. I planned on parking in my usual spot near the Nelson Avenue gate, but as I drove over I realized the throngs of people walking in that direction meant I could not park close. I ended up near downtown, farther away than if i had just walked from my home. When I got there, the place was packed. Reportedly 15,000 were in the grandstand. The backstretch, which typically has one or two dozen not actually working there, had thousands. More people showed up for this than went to the afternoon’s races. Everyone was there to just see a horse. The colt’s human connections  —  both the owner and trainer  — have fallen into disrepute, but people were not there for them, but for a magnificent animal. It’s a useful reminder that the horse is the draw.

Another week in drugs and racing

Posted by noonante on June 4, 2021
Posted in: Horse Racing. Tagged: , , , , , , . Leave a comment

There is perhaps a mistaken view that only Medina Spirit’s drug positive is the news in racing. I hate to disabuse of that notion, but there are four other stories of note.

The first is that two trainers in the Belmont Stakes have experienced their own recent positives. Doug O’Neill, trainer of Hot Rod Charlie, had a horse test positive while he was on the ballot for the Hall of Fame. John Sadler, trainer of Rock Your World, had a horse recently test positive. Their horses are likely to be among the top betting choices in the Belmont and were indeed, the second and third betting choices in the Kentucky Derby. Think of the public reaction had their charges hit the board with the presumably soon-to-be-disqualified Medina Spirit.

Speaking of Halls of Fame, Richard Vega, a member of the Parx Hall of Fame – not to be confused with the National Hall of Fame in Saratoga Springs – has been suspended from training by the Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission. This followed a raid at Parx that uncovered a “significant amount of contraband” and “items that have no business on the backside” according to a quote by a Pennsylvania official in Thoroughbred Daily News.

Then we have the charming story from quarter horse racing. Hair tests prior to the Sam Houston Futurity revealed that six of the ten entrants had clenbuterol or albuterol in their system. Of the remaining four, two tests were inconclusive. This is apparently a major race in that sport since the purse was $731,650 – an amount exceeded by only two races on this summer’s Saratoga schedule.

While each of these stories has its own significance, a Kentucky Derby disqualification by a trainer who many see as the face of the sport is potentially devastating. Bob Baffert’s attorney, Craig Robertson, was interviewed on CNN by two reporters whose facial expressions conveyed that they were hearing a load of bullshit. Robertson appears to be asserting that additional testing will reveal that chemicals in the patch applied for the month following Medina Spirit’s Santa Anita Derby will “prove” that the ointment was the source of betamethasone and not an injection. I know there must be a Latin expression for this logical fallacy, but an equally plausible explanation is that the ointment was applied to cover for the possibility that the horse was also being injected.

Robertson at one point said that Bob Baffert was the Michael Jordan of horse racing. I am having a hard time getting around the notion that a person who may only sweat when he hears of the latest drug positive is the equivalent of Jordan. One of the interviewers suggested that a more apt analogy might be Jose Canseco.

Fortunately, drugs are not the only topic of controversy. New Jersey just implemented a rule barring the use of the whip except when safety is a consideration. Monmouth Park’s first weekend with this rule appears to have been unremarkable. Jockeys and some bettors are opposed to the rule. The jocks raise the issue of safety, even though there is an explicit exception reflecting that concern. Having just watched Irad Ortiz, Jr. taken from the Belmont track in an ambulance (he appears to be OK) pointed to the hazard of riding horses for a living. I am reluctant to be critical, but their argument makes little sense. Bettors are another story. They are going to make wagering decisions based on whether a horse can be whipped? Come on.