Quote:
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Somehow Barry Irwin preaching about the evils of drugs in our game, when Team Valor's list of trainers reads like a who's who of drug violators in racing, severly damages his credibility.
It's important to practice what one preaches. And, as far as I can tell, the author of that piece does not.
|
This issue has been debated time and time again -- and the industry at large should continue to address it until "we fix it" so to speak. I think too many people saying it's "broken" is not going to get it "fixed". I am for an overhaul, revamping, etc. or whatever you want to call it of the medication rules and regulations. Make it practical however. I am also for uniform medication rules. I think "zero tolerance" as clear as it may sound has not yet been defined as much so that it can have practical application.
However, as creative and thought provoking as a measure like this is, IMHO, it is not addressing the problem -- at least not directly. First, the this will not do away with "illegal" drugs --whether the vet has them, the trainer, or "someone else" (and yes, I believe there is a "someone else" often involved in these situations -- think about it. We have all read about the cases where people have been caught, indicted, etc. -- Woodbine, NJ, FL, etc.). Second, from a practicality standpoint, I think this is extremely difficult. It's kind of like Congressional efforts on "carry over basis" in tax reform acts. Sounds great -- then when you look at how you can get there, you realize you can't. Think about how this works? Will the regulatory body, racing commission, whoever it might be -- are they going to do a search, and more importantly, an audit of every single vet, and truck, that enters and moves around the grounds of the track? Are they going to do this every single day? What about their offices -- on and off the grounds?
This is a much more global issue from a practicality standpoint. Regardless, how do the drugs get onto the grounds now? Hey, here is another question -- how do we know we are talking about a "drug" in a traditional sense? Interesting. So, with all this in mind, how about that we still aren't addressing the real problem. One aspect of this, and I see that it makes the problem worse, is the lack of a "leader" to lead the industry. I would think that if the industry decided to give the Jockey Club more bite, they would be the ideal choice. People have called for a racing "Czar" for quite some time. Also, part of the real issue here is money, testing, technology, and everything that goes along with this. Money -- very simple -- how big is this industry? Come on now, this can't be that much of a problem. Testing? Other countries got it right. There are certain states -- like NJ -- who seem to be light years ahead of other jurisdictions and the industry as a whole, as far as testing, catching people, sting operations, enforcement, harsher penalties, etc. Why not follow suit?
Last, but certainly not least, Andy's post above hits the nail on the head. For too long this too has been part of the problem. Whether you want to call it grandstanding, soapbox preaching, pointing fingers, whatver -- this is it. You want this to be fixed -- be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
I am sure Barry Irwin has a lot more to say about the global issue, and his own position on employed trainers coming up positive. Now, I personally would have liked to seen and heard more of that within the parameters of the article. That would have added credibility to his position. Absent of that, yes, in my mind there is a credibility issue, but also one of "pointing fingers" at everyone else.
I for one find it very disturbing that someone like Barry Irwin says the things he says about a Hall of Fame trainer like Bobby Frankel. Where is that being part of the solution? I find it disturbing that he doles out nicknames to other trainers, with monikers like "chemical" so and so, or so and so "syringe". Is that being part of the solution? These people are not guilty just because Barry Irwin says so. They are not guilty because people Barry Irwin knows and trusts told him so. They are not guilty because of any reason that Barry Irwin or anyone else offers up. This too is part of the problem. Perhaps many people, including Barry Irwin don't see that.
Eric