Quote:
|
Originally Posted by otisotisotis
But Steve, this segmented, fractious industry does nothing but encourage outside pressures because of a percieved (and I think, real) disconnect with any solid, central orgizational structure.
Many people on this board beat up politicians and political groups for their self-interested points of view, and at the same time only wonder what this industry can do for them.
The time is long passed for a national regulating authority to oversee all things thoroughbred, and maybe the threat to put an end to interstate wagering would be the best motivator to make groups work together.
Then again, I may win the lottery tonight...
|
The issue with any central authority figure is who will run it, how much will it cost, how large will the organization be, etc. What about the states like Florida where the racing regulations are actually state laws? If a Fed board using the threat of cutting off simulcasting mandates that they change their laws what happens then? It is not that simple to do that. What happens that during the process to change the law or create a new law some yahoo attaches something totally unreasonable to the racing law? Then it gets defeated becuase of the amendment added and the state goes dark? The ironic part of the use of the IHA is that the track have virtually no control over medication or testing yet they are the ones being threatened with the loss of the signal. This whole hearing was a setup. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on (not that there should even be sides) you have to admit that the whole process was contrived. I saw it first hand in KY with the wife. This is just a repeat of that whole process.