My point with a colt needing to run on medication in order to do well was that, with less permitted medications, he's not as likely to perform well, and thus likely to have less of a chance to get a foothold in the breeding market. I wasn't saying such a horse would be forbidden or unable to breed, just that market desire for a young stallion who'd been a success at the races would make things harder on one that hasn't done well. This seems pretty clear to me; I'm not seeing where you're getting confused.
I don't think I said anything about "allowing weaker horses to pass off genetic weaknesses" as though one needed to give them permission, so I'm not sure what was "bunk." I think it's fairly well established that our physical traits are in our genes and we pass them along to offspring, whether we are horses, people, or Madagascar hissing cockroaches. And no, those genes can't be changed by medicine or surgery- my father's and my noses look nothing alike, but that's because he broke his as a teenager- I still got what he was born with, before that diving accident.
Again, the argument was, if permissive medication enables horses that, under their own genetically-given abilities, would not have managed a career at the races, to succeed, those horses are more likely to have an opportunity at the breeding market, based on those artificially enhanced successes (and by "opportunity" I don't mean "permission" I mean there might be a demand for said horse that there wouldn't be otherwise. Again, I don't get what is unclear about that).
Once again, a horse returning to the races after recovering from an injury is not the same thing as running a medicated horse. I don't think there's a racing fan anywhere who doesn't understand that athletes do get injured sometimes. If anything, the fact that PE recovered from what should have been a career-ending injury is testament to her good genes, since many horses would not have been able to, no matter how heavily medicated they were, or how much metal was put into their legs.
One thing I find so entertaining about conservative mindsets is the "all or nothing" mentality- "Medicating horses can be bad?" "Fine, you're saying let's ban everything! What about ulcer medications?" "You don't want to operate on them, either, do you? Why do you hate our freedom?"
Because we don't know where to draw the line right this second doesn't mean the dialogue shouldn't be taking place. There are more TBs born now than 50 years ago, as you've said in earlier posts, and yet fields are smaller and individual horses make fewer starts. That, again, was the point of Beyer's article- that medication is not helping American racing- the push for it was based on increasing the number of starts horses could make, and that didn't happen. All of your comments have had to do with breeding, not the state of racing. Which of course, reinforces the biggest problem with racing, which is that breeding controls it. You yourself are a trainer, and almost all of your comments have been focused on breeding, I'm sure because that's where the actual money is. They should start calling trainers "future stud developers." (I'm teasing, of course, but sometimes it seems not that far off base to racing fans). Do you not give a horse antibiotics if it has an infection? Of course you medicate them. Do you give it steroids to build up muscle it might not be genetically predisposed to have? I would say no, as steroids aren't good for mammals (except in cases being used to treat severe illness, yes I know). If they had no adverse side effects, I think baseball bigwigs wouldn't be screaming about them so much.
I thought you made a good case in a post some time ago about medication enabling trainers to turn a horse around faster and that enabling owners to see a return on their investment faster, but that requires putting what may or may not be best for the animal below what's best for the owner, as the money is the motivating factor. Is that right or wrong? I don't know. I certainly think most trainers want what's best for their animals, and I also know racing is a very expensive sport. And, too, horses make fewer starts now, so is it really making a difference? Again, I don't know. I just thought it was a good financial argument and still remember it.
You also (indirectly, I think) bring up a number of tangents, but I think it helps reinforce that racing's issue is not medication only, or breeding only, or tracks only- it's a number of things that combined result in fewer starts and smaller fields. But, as long as the gambling dollars hold out, there's no reason for American racing to change anything. Also a very American trait- if it's not really, really, catastrophically breaking, why bother doing anything? And even then, maybe not bother.
Anyway, good stuff, as always, Chuck. Thanks for responding.