Quote:
Originally Posted by paulo537
I read the article and while I thought it was good, I don't share the same level of enthusiasm as others. I do agree the problem is a lack of consistent medication policy across the sport but I would ask these questions:
1. How much longer should fans and gamblers be asked to wait until the sport starts to manage the issue itself?
|
I'm not convinced that gamblers have a problem with medication rules. If they think someone is cheating they will just bet them. Fans... the only fans I know are gamblers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulo537
2. What makes US horse racing so very different than racing in other countries with much stricter medication rules?
|
The racing in other countries is different. They don't really ask the horses for much run until the stretch. The horses are bred to run long not fast?
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulo537
3. Why don't we have penalties on owners for medication violations? If trainers are held strictly liable, why not owners?
|
Outside of Michael Gill, I can't think of many owners having much to do with the daily care, medication - etc of the horse. if you take away the purse money from horses that test positive than you punish owner's pocket book. What do you want to do? Ban all of the owners. What if there are 50 owners in a partnership? Have the state take ownership?
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulo537
I also found the paragraph where he asked why "these well-heeled people don't ... just prove the theory yourself without dragging the rest of the racing industry down with you?" to be rather odd.
4. Who are these people? And, why should anyone who doesn't want to invest in the negative expectation business of horse ownership be expected to prove anything to anyone?
|
imagine John Kerry actually paying higher taxes instead of dodging them. While he blames the system for allowing people to keep more of their compensation.
Owners that complain about the drug rules then take full advantage of them.