New Bill Rhoden piece; Davidowitz Letter Response..
 

More nonsense from the laughable Bill Rhoden:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/sp...oden.html?_r=1

i wonder if bill rhoden uses penicillin? after all, it wasn't always available.

Steroidal drugs are not permitted in international racing. America, historically, has been more permissive, Arthur said, because there was the belief that these medications were beneficial to the horse.

“There are people who still believe that,” he said. “It’s not proven either way, but it is an issue that has caused concern to a number of people who have seriously examined horse racing and the medication policy



...so, we're going to assume then that it's detrimental?

Racing enthusiasts seem to feel that the general public, rather than being horrified, should view these breakdowns the way boxing fans and pro football fans look at catastrophic injuries: as unfortunate but inevitable consequences of difficult sports.


i think he's inferring that this is the wrong way to look at it, but is it?

I love it when he is on ESPN's Sports Reporters and the other columnists use him as a punching bag.

Remarkably empty of original thought.

Did he just want to keep the PETA-type AR morons on edge before this year's Derby?

I think it was a good piece, couldn't find anything wrong with it.

My problem with it is that it is generalized, and basically nothing new.

not a fan of this knucklehead Rhoden
I don't grade this type of journalism highly. I think it at least borders on "shock-journalism" if it isn't blatent.
This type of argument is not a good closer for the topic of legal drug issues.
He has a very "light" and brief look into conjecture over a general subject of legal drugs, and then the heavy closer... It is overly dramatic. This would be a good closing argument for a call to abolish racing. I wouldn't be surprised if he built the article around the dramatic closer. *thumbs down*

my main problem with it is that he conceded there is no proof for or against meds, but comes down against them anyway.

that and the 'horses don't choose to do this' line of thinking. no, horses don't exactly come knocking on a trainers door and volunteer. but convince me you can get a 1k or so animal to do something he doesn't want to do.

It's the New York Times....

Why would they report on horseracing without a slant? They report on everything else that way....

Send this ******* to Gitmo and waterboard him.

Davidowitz responds to Rhoden with a letter that was published yesterday in the Times...


Letter to the Editor

Ban Drugs to Save Racing’s Future
By STEVE DAVIDOWITZ

Published: March 23, 2009

This letter was written to William C. Rhoden in response to his Sports of The Times column about the need for drug reform in thoroughbred racing.

I am a devout fan of horse racing, an active bettor, a columnist and author of several horse racing books. I dearly love to watch the sleek, stunningly beautiful thoroughbreds as they perform countless feats of speed and endurance.

I love the racetrack because the act of handicapping horse races is the single most intellectually challenging game I have encountered in a lifetime of playing chess, bridge, backgammon, poker, gin rummy and quite a few other games that failed to make the cut.

I bet only on horse races, not on baseball, football, boxing or the stock market; I bet on horse races because 99.44 percent of the races I witnessed have been conducted without collusion. And I bet on them because the degree of difficulty to pick winners often is matched by payoffs commensurate with the research and clearheaded thinking involved.

But I hate drugs in racing. I hate them in racing as much as I despise them in baseball, Olympic track and field, world-class cycling and in the locker rooms of our high school and college athletes. At their core, drugs in athletic forums pose dangers to athletes, and they corrupt the idea of a level playing field for fans who root for their favorites or have the legal license to wager on a fair and square outcome.

I am not the only member of the so-called racing press who feels this way and has expressed it in hundreds of forums. But we are a dying breed, with minimal influence, thanks to newspapers’ general abdication of the journalistic imperative to cover this megabillion-dollar sport/game in favor of using wire service summaries and public-relations releases written by racing officials who remain blind to the No. 1 cause of breakdowns and to the collateral loss of public confidence that has eroded the sport’s standing in America.

I applaud you for putting a clear focus on the issue in The New York Times in a nonsensationalistic manner. Your column ably sent a message to racing officials to examine how the sport is failing to see the need to go beyond its improved safety practices.

Any rational human has to know that nothing less than an end to legalized drugs for racing purposes will save the sport for the future. Analgesic drugs like phenylbutazone (bute) and powerful diuretics like furosemide (Lasix) may be beneficial as part of a curative medical regimen. But they do not belong in the competitive arena.

It is indisputable that bute can mute a horse’s natural warning system (pain) to a minor hoof or bone injury, which can develop into a catastrophic breakdown under the stress of a race. Lasix may flush out excess liquids and drastically impact the pulmonary system; yet, its long-term effects are not fully known by veterinary science 30 years after it first was unethically used to screen detection of illegal drugs in postrace urine samples.

The bottom line is, do we need endless commissions or studies to know that drugs can be dangerous to the horses we love to watch compete? Instead of resisting a complete ban on drugs in the game, American racing officials should be on the front lines fighting to get rid of them for, if nothing else, the survival of a great sport.


Steve Davidowitz is the author of “The Best and Worst of Thoroughbred Racing” (DRF Press) and a columnist for Daily Racing Form’s www.drf.com.

If you really stare this issue in the eye who blinks first ? You'd have quite a few less horses competing if all drugs were banned within a time frame prior to a race . The sport would need to downsize , it seems, because you would have fewer horses fit enough to race without drugs.

Drugs are needed for recovery and therapy . I tend to favor a clean horse policy for races if I had to choose . The effects on breeding would be widespread as well, it seems . You'd have to phase this policy in starting with the 2 yr olds .

Soo... stop allowing the use of Lasix = less breakdowns? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Not buying that for a second - in fact you will do nothing but insure many, many more breakdowns...

First off, no one has any idea what degree of impact it would have on the sport since 99% of them race on it regardless of whether they "need" it or not - I can assume it would not be negligible ... It will however afford the option to jump to the unscientific and illogical conclusion of what % of the population has bleeding problems, of course leading to the consequent witch hunt to determine which stallions and broodmare sires need to be eradicated from the breed.

Good luck with that. Telling Darley that 60% of their stallion portfolio's progeny will be banned from American racing, cause they only work on Lasix and that's a no-no now.


Owners, breeders, trainers and horsemen will go broke and be run out of the game. Horseplayers will have significantly fewer options and the game as a whole will further wither away on the vine.

All over a stat that no one even measured 2 decades ago. Not that the industry, in the face of confrontation,would use poor science, shoddy data, and millions of dollars to "correct" some perceived problem that afterward is just as bad if not worse and has completely altered the path to the sports greatest race - oh, wai



*Message brought to you by the Lasix Foundation :)

Actually any rational human probably sees the inherent differences between the two and cannot understand why the two are combined in the same breath so frequently by anti drug police. Perhaps their PETA memberships require it.

Want to see breakdowns? Watch what happens when horses suffocate on their own blood in mid stretch - How many Jockey funerals is Mr. Davidowitz committing to attend during his "experiment"?

The use of bute as a raceday med is a completely different discussion altogether, and certainly one worthy of investigation, but combining the two as one is ludicrous

There is absolutely zero emperical support for that statement. None at all.

He simply made it up. That's completely irresponsible of him, as a turf writer, to put that in there.

Absolutely.

I'm tired of "drugs in racing" information being disseminated by people that obviously do not have a clue about the drugs they are discussing, nor the effect those drugs can have on horses.

I hate it when clueless interpretations clutter up newspapers. Why can't people keep them on the internet where they belong.