drugs in racing

All posts tagged drugs in racing

A look back inspired by social distancing

Posted by noonante on March 22, 2020
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

This seems like a good opportunity to embark on any number of projects an inveterate procrastinator can acquire.  I have been in desperate need of cleaning out and reorganizing my files, so I grabbed a big one thinking I would be able to toss many of the clippings in it.

So I took the one labeled “Drugs I.”  This is from back in the day when I thought a single file could contain several years of reporting on that topic.  Nowadays, they are labeled “Drugs 2019, file 1,”  “Drugs 2019, file 2,” etc.  Since this file had articles from 2012 and 2013, I assumed I would be tossing most of them.

I did get rid of some, but here are some titles of ones that were unfortunately resonant:

  •   “A Derby Win, but a Troubled Record for a Trainer,”  New York Times, May 10, 2012;
  •   “Facing horse racing’s drug problem,”  ESPN.com, June 1, 2012;
  •   “Facing the leadership deficit,”  ESPN.com, August 14, 2012;
  •   “Medication Reform Takes Step Toward Reality,”  BloodHorse.com, December 14, 2012;
  •  “On Salix, Kentucky Feeling Alone on Ledge,”  BloodHorse.com, March 14, 2013;
  •  “Lasix ban:  Breeders’ Cup hand forced by waning support,”  DRF.com, March 21, 2013;
  •   “Handicapping Dopers at the Racetrack,”  New York Times, August 16, 2013;
  •  “Medication Reforms Carry Sense of Urgency,”   BloodHorse.com, August 13, 2013;
  •  “Law Panelists Note Progress in Drug Reform,”  BloodHorse.com, August 13, 2013;
  •  “Sheikh Mohammed launches inquiry after police seize drugs from Dubai jet,”  The Guardian, September 29, 2013;
  •   “Uniform medication reform again a major topic at Round Table,”  DRF, August 13, 2013;
  •   “Racing’s credibility on line over lack of doping transparency,”  independent,ie, December 9, 2013;
  •   And, my favorite:  “Time for racing leaders to get their heads out of the sand,”  TDN link to tenoonan.com, December 11, 2013.

I am guessing the only ones not disturbed by that listing are those who have successfully resisted or slow-walked any meaningful reform in a sport desperately in need of a significant overhaul.  I did not get a headline that reflected the remarks of Travis Tygart, head of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, at the 2012 Jockey Club Round Table.  But it is a sad reminder of how long an alternative that could save racing as a sport has been out there.

There are some sidelights that make the above-list even more disturbing.  The first is that the 2012 Derby reference means that in three of the last eight Kentucky Derbies there have been questions about impermissible drugs by the trainers of horses who crossed the finish line in first place.

The other is the reference to Sheikh Mohammed, head of racing’s most powerful operation, and the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates.  The Guardian reports that “[t]housands of pounds worth of unlicensed products  –  including steroidal injections, anaesthetics and anti-inflammatories that have been described a ‘potentially toxic and dangerous to horses’  –  were seized and destroyed by the UK Border Agency….”  The investigator appointed by the Sheikh to conduct the investigation is his wife, Princess Haya.  While she is indeed a respected horse person in her own right, it’s his wife.

The sad part of this is that any of those headlines could have been written this year  –  except, of course, for ones suggesting progress on drug reform efforts.  Racing is living on borrowed time, and the time for changes was evident eight years ago.

 

New York continues its vendetta against Rick Dutrow

Posted by noonante on August 22, 2018
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

The New York State Gaming Commission issued a report on August 8 purportedly explaining its reasons for not reconsidering its decision to suspend trainer Richard Dutrow for 10 years.  Dutrow’s attorneys asked the Commission to reconsider only the penalty provision and shorten the suspension to “time served,” which at this point is more than five and one-half years.

The August 8 report, however, is nothing more than a post hoc rationale justifying what I earlier described as a “bag job” by the Commission to target Dutrow.  (That post explains the background of the proceeding which will not be repeated here.)

The report  –  given that it is dated August 8  –  was not discussed at the secret July 16 meeting where the commissioners decided against reconsideration by a 4-2 vote.  At the public meeting that followed, the vote was announced, but there was neither a discussion nor an explanation.  The report not only misstates the positions advocated by Dutrow’s attorneys, but also some of the evidence.  It is merely a continuation of disgraceful behavior by a government agency that has deprived someone of his livelihood.

The motion by Dutrow’s attorneys clearly states that they were not seeking to relitigate the underlying violations for which New York’s stewards imposed a 90-day suspension, but only for the “limited purpose of reviewing and modifying” the 10-year suspension subsequently imposed by the Commission.

The Commission’s regulations permit a reopening based on “newly discovered evidence” or for “other compelling reasons.”  While Dutrow’s motion cited newly discovered evidence regarding a key Commission witness, it stated that “the most compelling reason to reopen this proceeding is that to do so will serve the interest of justice.”

The Commission basically ignored the arguments on fairness, and instead repeatedly claimed that Dutrow was trying to relitigate the underlying issues.  It spent most of its 16-page report defending its original decision and the litigation upholding that decision, even though there was no contention by Dutrow’s attorneys that the Commission’s decision was wrong, or that they lacked the authority to impose the sanction they did.

Dutrow’s request for fairness is predicated upon the disproportionate penalties imposed when compared with “like or similar circumstances.”  His attorneys claimed they were the “most severe ever imposed on a trainer in American racing at any of the leading racetrack venues” going back to 2005.

But the Commission’s report did not address the questions of “fairness” or “justice.”  And there are undoubtedly people who think Dutrow is getting his just desserts and clemency is not warranted.  That’s fine.  But the Commission owes it to the citizens of New York as well as the hundreds of professional horse people supporting Dutrow’s reinstatement to explain why they think so.

I tend to be wary when a decision-maker is setting up straw men to knock down, as the Commission report does by focusing on the merits of the underlying violations  – again, not arguments being raised by Dutrow.  The thrust of his petition is the regulatory language permitting a reconsideration based on “other compelling reasons.”  There is no better way to describe this fraudulent report than to quote the entirety of the Commission’s “explanation” on this issue:

“Finally, the Commission considers whether there are other compelling reasons for reopening the proceeding as to penalty.

Having considered all of these questions, the Commission concludes, in its sound discretion, that Dutrow has shown none of the circumstances that would be required for us to exercise our discretion to reopen this proceeding.”

Seriously.  That’s it.  Dutrow’s petition exhaustively cited numerous other cases in other jurisdictions in which the penalty imposed was less severe  –  or justifiably equally or more severe  –  and the Commission dismisses it in a single sentence with no explanation.  Kind of like the way they announced their decision to not reopen the case.

One example cited by Dutrow’s attorneys concerned the Commission’s suspension of trainer Roy Sedlacek, who admitted administering opiates to two horses on race day.  The drugs were illegal, not therapeutic, performance-enhancing and compounded in such a way as to avoid detection by a testing laboratory.  For violations of anti-doping rules more severe than anything for which Dutrow was ever accused, the penalty was a five-year suspension  –  or less than what Dutrow has already served.

The Commission’s report detailing Dutrow’s “history of violations” is unable to cite anything of significance in the seven years preceding this case.  There have been overages of legal medications, including one of the violations here  –  as there are with numerous trainers  –  but not one for an illegal drug.

I will not go into the Commission inaccurately recounting two factual matters that are contrary to statements in the Hearing Officer’s report imposing the severe penalties.  Suffice it to say that it is more emblematic of an attorney’s spin on the facts.  It is why many people distrust lawyers, but this is an adjudicatory body that has an obligation to dispassionately review evidence and make conclusions based on objective and independent analysis.

The Commission’s August 8 report is a shoddy attempt to cover up a decision they were apparently embarrassed to explain in a public hearing.  That would be understandable given that they are unable to provide a coherent explanation as to why Dutrow was treated more severely than someone such as Roy Sedlacek.

My suspicion is that this is a political decision emanating from the second floor of Albany’s State Capitol.  There was the communications from Ed Martin, head of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, urging a more severe sanction after the stewards imposed “only” a 90-day suspension.  It was accompanied by a statement that a United States Senator from New Mexico had expressed his concern about the penalty.  That would be the same Ed Martin who once chaired the Commission’s predecessor Racing and Waging Board that continued to license Dutrow.  He is now the head of a national organization that continually rails against the evils of a national body telling a state agency what to do.

Regrettably, however, it is a risk-averse Governor running for reelection who is not looking for “independent” agencies in the Executive Branch to exercise any independence.  The Gaming Commission is mostly comprised of Andrew Cuomo’s appointees.  Reinstating Rick Dutrow would be a controversial decision even if it is the correct one.  It is unfortunate that we cannot expect this state government to make the right decision if it could adversely affect the Governor, even at the expense of another’s ability to make a living.

 

Racing leaders continue to ignore drug problems

Posted by noonante on March 13, 2018
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . 1 Comment

The aversion of racing’s leaders to meaningful uniform anti-doping initiatives continues.  Most recently, the CEO of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Agency, Eric Hamelback, once again opposed federal legislation that would place racing under the authority of a national agency.  Unfortunately, Hamelback’s opposition was premised on a false statement of the content of the bill pending in Congress.

Writing in the Thoroughbred Daily News, Hamelback stated that the legislation “does not seek to place our industry into the hands of anti-doping experts with the ability to make common-sense distinctions between performance-enhancing drugs and those that aren’t.”  That is because, he says, the appointed members of the oversight Board “have nothing to do with our industry.”

The Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017 would create a national board to establish and enforce uniform anti-drugging policies.  It is, of course, highly controversial.  One of the foremost arguments against it by opponents has been that the United States Anti-Drugging Agency (USADA) is not equipped to expand its jurisdiction from human athletes to equine ones.

Hamelback continues to perpetrate this myth, but the actual language from the Congressional bill contradicts his assertion.  The bill creates a governing Board consisting of the USADA CEO, six additional members of the USADA board and the following members:

  • at least one with “expertise in equine anti-doping and medication control regulation;”
  • at least one with “significant experience as an owner” or with “expertise in the breeding of race horses;”
  • at least one “formerly employed as an executive with a racetrack;”
  • at least one vet with “expertise in equine veterinary practice with regard to race horses or expertise in veterinary research in matters affecting race horses;”
  • at least one with “expertise in training;” and,
  • at least one jockey.

The proposed law further requires USADA to solicit candidates from a “cross-section of equine industry representatives.”  Simply put, the proposed Board would have plenty of representation of experienced and knowledgeable racing professionals.

Hamelback cites what he views as the injustices perpetrated recently on trainers he believes to be above approach such as Rusty Arnold, Joe Sharp and Bill Mott, claiming that a federal oversight agency would not prevent the abuses.  The irony, however, is that he favors leaving in place the morass of some three dozen regulatory agencies that are the perpetrators of the injustices he cites.

Instead he advocates those who are outraged by inappropriate and unfair decisions to “get involved”  –  go to meetings, write letters, etc.  Of course, in order to make informed arguments, one needs facts.  I have no reason to question the integrity or innocence of any of the trainers cited in Hamelback’s piece.  But saying “Rusty Arnold is a good guy” is not a sufficient reason  –  nor should it be  –  to overturn a drug positive.  (The lab making the initial determination later discovered an error.)

The case with which I have the most familiarity is that of Bill Mott.  He was penalized for a positive, but New York, unlike many jurisdictions, not only does not require a split sample but apparently routinely destroys them.  Mott reportedly is now into six figures in legal fees and has taken his case to court after not getting redress before the Gaming Commission, the state’s regulatory body  –  the entity Hamelback seeks to retain.

I find the Mott case as I understand it to be an outrageous injustice because of New York’s continuing failure to remediate it.  But Hamelback’s inaccurate assessment that a new federal agency would lack knowledgeable representatives of the industry actually does apply to New York’s Gaming Commission.  I attended a public seminar conducted by the Commission on Lasix a couple of summers ago.  It was abundantly clear that the commissioners who bothered to attend had no familiarity with the issue.  That’s understandable given that the Commission has a broader jurisdiction than racing.  But there are also none of the experience requirements that Hamelback thinks are so essential  –  and that are contained in the Horseracing Integrity Act.

The lackadaisical attitude of Hamelback’s organization, the NHBPA, for meaningful medication reform could not be better exemplified than the agenda for their national convention now underway in New Orleans. Although it is a five-day conference, only two agenda items can be considered to be remotely connected to addressing racing drug issues.

On Thursday, there is a 25-minute (sic) session on the “Trainer All Insurer Rule.”  The next day, a two-hour session is entitled “Environmental Transfer, Cause for Concern in Racehorses:  Inadvertent Exposure to Recreational and Prescription Medications.”

I doubt that I am going too far out on the ledge to predict that both sessions will again repeat the tiresome nonsense that racing is overwhelmingly drug free as shown by the low rate of post-race positives.  Leaders such as Hamelback are among the few people involved with racing I have encountered who believe there is no problem worth a serious discussion.

 

 

Racing hit with another body blow

Posted by noonante on May 22, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments

This time it wasn’t People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or its undercover investigator.  It was Bryant Gumbel on HBO”s Real Sports.  And it’s NBC News with a report by Anna Schecter.  Both reports indict the racing industry for the widespread use of drugs that make horses run faster or mask pain so they can run.

The HBO report by Bernard Goldberg is sickening.  It includes ample video of breakdowns during a race, dead horses on the track, and a particularly disturbing look at a horse being put down in a part of Penn National called “The Pit.”  While HBO used excerpts from the PETA video, Goldberg also interviewed Steve Asmussen and Scott Blasi, the targets of PETA, as well as veterinarians Dr. Mary Scollay and Dr. Kate Papp, the subject of the NBC report.

Although much of the HBO report has been reported previously, the adage of “a picture being worth a thousand words” is rarely this forceful.  And it comes at a time when racing is getting the most attention it ever does with a Triple Crown bid coming up.

The trainers featured in the piece just happen to be the top three by earnings this year, according to Equibase.  The Todd Pletcher trainee Coronado Heights, one of the 19 horses who suffered a fatal breakdown racing at Aqueduct in early 2012, is mentioned because he received 17 injections of drugs  –  each one legal  –  in the week before breaking down.  Bob Baffert’s indiscriminate use of Thyroxine, a medication used to treat a thyroid condition, was discussed in the context of seven sudden deaths of horses trained by him.  Again, the medication is legal, but there was no diagnosis by a vet that any of the horses needed it.

Then there is Steve Asmussen, second on the earnings list, the active leader in career wins  –  and 28 drug violations attributed, according to Asmussen, to differing state regulations.  It was Asmussen’s barns at Churchill Downs and Saratoga at which PETA’s undercover investigator worked, secretly recording the treatment of horses.

Goldberg questioned Scott Blasi and then Asmussen about a horse that suffered a fatal heart attack just after crossing the finish line.  Neither seemed to be aware the reporter had a copy of the horse’s vet records.  Blasi said she only received Lasix.  Asmusssen acknowledged Lasix and Clenbuterol.  It turns out that in addition to those two medications, she had also been given Thyroxine, a medication that has as a side effect increasing the heart rate.  Asmussen ended up admitting  –  as he phrased it  –  that he “feeds” Thyroxine.  It’s as though a drug with a significant side effect is a nutritional supplement.

In the NBC report  –  entitled “Every Day I Almost Quit”  –  veterinarian Kate Papp described once diagnosing a horse with a stress fracture in a hind leg, convincing the trainer to given the horse some time off.  The owner, however, switched trainers and got another vet to inject the horse.  The horse broke its leg during the race and was euthanized on the track.

It is not just the equine athletes that are in jeopardy, of course, because there is a human on its back when it trains or races.  HBO showed former exercise rider James Rivera, now a quadriplegic with permanent brain damage as the result of a training breakdown.  Dr. Papp examined the horse’s vet records and concluded that the administered drugs indicated “underlying painful or diseased conditions.”

Many in racing dismissed the PETA video because of the group’s explicit agenda and the fact that some seven hours of video were edited down to nine minutes.  I don’t know how much raw footage HBO took to come up with its narrative, but it doesn’t matter anymore than it does with PETA.  While there is a level of sensationalism with so many shots of breakdowns, those in the industry know it is a disturbing reality in the sport.

The more disturbing reality, however, is that horses are given too many drugs, even if they are “legal.”  They are often given, as HBO stated, to make a horse run faster or to mask a painful condition, and not because it is necessary to treat a diagnosed medical issue.  One segment of the PETA video that was replayed by HBO was of a vet describing Lasix as a performance-enhancing drug.  Almost every horse racing in this country is racing with Lasix.  Thyroxine is being “fed” to horses not because it is necessary, but because it is viewed as a performance-enhancer.

How does the racing fan respond when asked about the HBO report?  “Oh, all those drugs are legal.”  That isn’t the answer to the problem.  It is the problem.

When a respected journalist describes racing as having a “rampant drug culture  –  one governed by greed,” it is well past the time to take corrective steps.  Racing leaders will say the industry is taking steps to address abuse, and they are.  But as Dr. Mary Scollay, the Equine Medical Director for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission and an author of the landmark report analyzing the 2012 Aqueduct fatalities said, “There is no excuse for us not doing better than we’re doing.”

Previous posts on drugs in racing are here, here and here.

 

Time for racing leaders to get their heads out of the sand

Posted by noonante on December 8, 2013
Posted in: Horse Racing. Tagged: , , , , , , , . 7 Comments

The forces opposed to drugs in horse racing now have their poster child  –  or poster horse if you will.  The recent Congressional hearing on the subject will not be the last time you hear the name Coronado Heights bandied about.  The four-year old gelding broke down in his third career start and had to be euthanized.  What has elevated this $7,500 claimer to prominence is being featured at the Congressional sub-committee hearing on legislation, HR 2012, that would provide federal oversight on the administration of drugs to racehorses.  The hearing ended with Congressman Joe Pitts asking two witnesses how the 17 injections given Coronado Heights in the week before his death was “putting the horse first.”

The Congressman, a Republican from Pennsylvania, is one of four co-sponsors of HR 2012.  The legislation would authorize the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the organization that finally dropped the hammer on Lance Armstrong, to regulate drugs that can be administered to racehorses, and establish penalties for those individuals violating its rules.  The key standard to be used in administering drugs is the principle of the Veterinary-Client-Patient Relationship set forth in the ethical rules of the American Veterinary Medical Association.  The essence of a VCPR is that a veterinarian’s treatment of the patient  –  in this case a racehorse  –  must be predicated upon the health needs of the animal and the independent professional judgment of the vet.  If medication is to be administered, it must be necessary to treat a documented medical condition.

Coronado Heights came to the attention of those who did not handicap Aqueduct’s 10th race on February 25, 2012, when his death was featured in a New York Times article by Joe Drape and three other reporters.  The article, published the week of the 2012 Kentucky Derby, included a graphic of 17 syringes depicting the drugs administered to the horse before his fatal race.  The accompanying article stated the gelding experienced pain and cartilage damage from a degenerative joint disease, and had been injected 13 times in the month before the race to treat that condition.  Coronado Heights was trained by Todd Pletcher who, as I write this, not only leads the nation in purses won this year with $24 million, but is $10 million ahead of number two.

The catastrophic breakdown of Coronado Heights was one of 21 fatalities experienced during the Aqueduct meet of 2011-12.  This prompted a call by Governor Andrew Cuomo for an independent review to ascertain the causes of the fatalities and to make recommendations.  The Task Force on Racehorse Health and Safety could not identify a single factor leading to the breakdowns, but did recommend a regulatory change to increase the time that one of the drugs administered to Coronado Heights in the week before the race could be administered.  The drug  –  Depo-Medrol®  –  had “been demonstrated to have degradative effects on articular cartilage,” according to the Task Force Report.

At the Congressional hearing, Philip Hanrahan, CEO of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association  –  the only witness who opposed the legislation of the six testifying  –  answered Congressman Pitt’s pointed question by quoting from the Task Force Report:  “Pre-race medication administered to the fatally injured horses  was similar  to that administered to the uninjured horses that raced.”  (The Report also said that trainer Pletcher “reported that the pre-race medication program for [Coronado Heights] was standard practice for all of the horses in his stable.”)  Hanrahan noted that wide-scale drug testing produces negligible results for impermissible medications and concluded that HR 2012 addresses a “problem that in reality does not exist.”

While Hanrahan’s comments may seem tone deaf, they are probably reflective of the industry consensus.  I think there are three components to the debate on drugs:

  • Drugs for which there is no therapeutic use  –  there appears to be universal agreement that such violations should be treated severely.  (The most recent notorious example being Demorphin, produced from the skin of South American frogs.)
  • Lasix  –  generally the only medication permitted on the day of a race, and at the heart of many of the most heated debates within the thoroughbred community.  Advocates of its use point out that it reduces pulmonary bleeding and is not a performance-enhancing drug.  It is the latter assertion with which I have the most difficulty.  The weight being carried by a horse is a major component of racing.  That’s why we have handicap races, assign differing weights based on age or gender, and why apprentice jockeys get a weight allowance.  If a three-pound difference in a race among older male horses is important, why is not the 20 pounds a horse may lose in water weight because of Lasix also significant?  To say this is not “performance-enhancing” flies in the face of much of racing history and thinking.
  • Legal therapeutic medications  –  all the medications Todd Pletcher had administered to Coronado Heights were legal.  For many in racing, that is where the inquiry should end.  What HR 2012 would require, however, is that any administered medication must address a specific diagnosis.

While the use of Lasix on race days draws most of the attention within the racing community, it is this third category that is the most troublesome if one’s concern is the widespread perception of rampant drugging.  The same day as the Congressional hearing, the California Horse Racing Board released its report on the sudden deaths of seven horses trained by Bob Baffert over a 16-month period ending early this year.  “Sudden death” is the acute collapse of a seemingly healthy horse, and is distinguished from the more common musculoskeletal injury that is the more typical cause of a racing fatality.  While sudden deaths during training or racing are not uncommon, it was the clustering of such a large number from the Baffert barn that led to the investigation.  The investigators concluded the causes of the deaths “remains unexplained,” while also noting that there was “no evidence” of illicit activity or rules violations.

There was one drug, however, that drew extra attention in this Report.  Baffert informed investigators that Thyro-L (levothyroxine) was used on all of his horses.  The medication  –  use of which is legal  –  is for treatment of hypothyroid conditions.  The report stated that it is a medication most commonly used to assist in weight loss for overweight horses returning from the farm.  Baffert, however, thought the medication was used to help “build up” his horses.  While it must be prescribed by a veterinarian, the Report concluded that Baffert used it more as a supplement and it was regularly added to feed tubs by barn staff, including grooms.  The Report further added that in its discussions with veterinarians, “prescribing thyroxine without evaluating thyroid levels is consistent with the standard of care for prescribing and dispensing thyroxine at the Thoroughbred race tracks in southern California.”  Also,  Baffert’s “use of medication and veterinary services … can best be described as moderate.”  Baffert discontinued the use of thyroxine in April following the sudden death of his seventh horse.  According to one report, he has not had a sudden death injury since then.

The most frequent argument of those defending the use of drugs in racing is that the percentage of horses testing positive in a post-race sample is negligible.  And they would be correct.  The number cited by Phil Hanrahan in his Congressional testimony is that less than one percent of tests over a four-year period were positive, and a much smaller percentage (142 of 368,900 tests) were for substances that were illegal.

When your prime argument boils down to the seemingly rampant drugging of racehorses being OK because the drugs are legal therapeutic medications  –  without addressing whether a particular horse needs the medication  –  you are missing the essential point of the case made by those opposing the racing industry’s use of drugs. I doubt there is a sensible person who would oppose medications for an animal who needs it.  But when the nation’s two leading trainers are administering drugs  –  albeit legal ones  –  without regard for the medical needs of a particular horse, we are no longer talking about therapeutic drugs, but rather drugs they hope will be performance enhancing.  Todd Pletcher said the drugs given Coronado Heights were consistent with what his horses received;  Baffert administered the same drug to all his horses without even knowing what the purpose of the drug was.  If they give the same drugs to all horses irrespective of an individual’s medical condition, what possible motivation would they have other than enhancing the horse’s performance?

If the top purse earners nationally are acting like this, what do you think will be the message sent to all trainers and owners?  If Pletcher and Baffert are engaged in this level of drugging  –  once more I will emphasize it is legal  –  why would a lesser trainer not try to stay competitive, particularly when it is becoming increasingly more difficult to compete with the guys who consistently get the best horses?  If racing’s leaders do not think this presents a major problem, both for the perception of racing in the general public as well as the many struggling to make a buck in this business, it really is time to get their heads out of the sand.

That brings us back to the main purpose of HR 2012.  It’s not that the sponsors want to kill horse racing.  It’s that if an animal is being asked to compete in an inherently stressful event for our entertainment, that animal should not be required to absorb drugs that are not needed to address a medical condition.  How can this industry oppose legislation that would require that drugs administered to a racehorse be ones necessary to address a medical condition?  That’s the main thrust of HR 2012.  The bill would not prevent a Coronado Heights from receiving the drugs he did in his last week if they were medically necessary.  Of course, if he did need that level of medication, sensible minds might wonder why he was racing at all.  And that is the real threat to our sport.

New series looks at drugs and racing

Posted by noonante on May 10, 2013
Posted in: Horse Racing. Tagged: . Leave a comment

The Thoroughbred Daily News has started a six-part series on drugs and thoroughbred racing, appropriately titled A Painful Truth.  This is not Joe Drape and The New York Times but a respected industry publication.

This is not a new issue.  Part 1 (from the May 2 issue) looked at the history of drugs in racing, going back to the early 20th century  –  with an article from 1903 in, yes, The New York Times  –  and the sport’s first Triple Crown winner, Sir Barton.

The next installment (May 10) brought us to the present, including a discussion of New York’s Task Force on Racehorse Health and Safety.  Author Ryan Goldberg forcefully brings home a point that I think many race trackers would like to avoid  –  it’s not just illegal drugs that present a problem, but legal ones as well.

This is a series that I hope all in the industry, as well as fans of the sport, will read carefully, and not dismiss it as readily as many did with the Times‘ account.  In intend to go into this deeper in a later post.