This Could Help Clean Up Racing

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is an idea suggested by Barry Irwin who is the President of Team Valor:

"Allow no vets or horsemen to possess any medication, legal or not. If vets want to prescribe drugs, they must buy them directly from the racing association and inform the state vet which horses will receive them and for what exact purpose. Anything found in a horse's system that did not come from the medicine chest of the track would result in harsh penalties for both the vet and the trainer."

For those that want to read the entire article, here is the link:

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36701

[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.

[Scav]

I think I read somewhere that in Japan, they have to buy all drugs through the track vet and if they are caught with any other drugs in their system, they are banned for life. Pretty cool if you ask me, if this is how it goes

[sumitas]

Makes sense.

[Danzig]

it's a start. i've been saying for some time there has got to be a vet at each track, answerable to no horsemen, and all meds have to go thru him.

also, amazing isn't it how much security they can afford to keep bettors honest, but don't have the $ to put cameras in barns...

To me the solution is simple. No medication at all.

On a side note---I believe that Kentucky still doesnt have a state vet. How freaking screwed up is that.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

To me the solution is simple. No medication at all.

Euro the spirit of what you are saying is ok, but its not practical. What do we do with bleeders?

Originally Posted by oracle80

Euro the spirit of what you are saying is ok, but its not practical. What do we do with bleeders?

What does Europe do with bleeders?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

What does Europe do with bleeders?

2x bleeders in australia aren't allowed to race/breed. might explain why their horses can run often, carry weight, and cover distances. they are the healthy racers! unhealthy ones aren't there cluttering the scene.

as for the euros, they come here to race!

I dont know the answer to this so I am asking. A bleeder doesnt bleed everytime he/she races---correct?

Originally Posted by Danzig188

2x bleeders in australia aren't allowed to race/breed. might explain why their horses can run often, carry weight, and cover distances. they are the healthy racers! unhealthy ones aren't there cluttering the scene.

as for the euros, they come here to race!

Now that is interesting. I did not know that about Austrailian horses. Good info right there.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

What does Europe do with bleeders?

They send a lot of them to the US where they become stakes horses.

Originally Posted by oracle80

They send a lot of them to the US where they become stakes horses.

They may send some over here. But how many do they send in comparison to how may stay over in Europe? Look at a card at any US track and see the number of horses using lasix. I find it real hard to believe that every horse that is on lasix needs it.

[ALostTexan]

How ironic is it that Barry Irwin pens this opinion piece for the Bloodhorse the same week that his trainer, Todd Pletcher, has his suspension upheld by the NY courts. Once again, do as I say not as I do.

[GenuineRisk]

Thanks for posting the link, Rupert. The thing that resonated most with me from the article was that it's very difficult to attract new gamblers to the game because there is such a strong perception that the game is fixed due in part to use of drugs. Which may ultimately be the only thing that will get the sport cleaned up even a little bit-- as much as many of us love the sport for the beauty and the thrill of it, it's the gambling that keeps it going.

[ELA]

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

[ALostTexan]

Until the high-profile owners start taking horses away from those found guilty of these offenses, there is little deterrence. If they lack the integrity to do this, then it becomes incumbent for one of two things to happen: (1) when imposing penalties, the regulators have to rule that, during the period of the suspension, the horses may not race in the name of a family member or an assistant trainer (NY did this in the Greg Martin case); or (2) the racing associations need to deny stalls to the repeat offenders (as NYRA did with Shuman a few summers ago).

On this last score, how is it that tracks still give stalls to Scott Lake? What number suspension is he working on now? If someone is telling him after each suspension that it's his last chance, then it's (to quote Lt. Frank Drebin) "one of those major-league baseball, Steve Howe kind of last chances."

Originally Posted by ELA

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

Thanks for the great post Eric. I agree with most of what you say, and these guys who tell us "that they know who is juicing" lose me right there.
Its as obnoxious and arrogant a thing that anyone could do.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Thanks for the great post Eric. I agree with most of what you say, and these guys who tell us "that they know who is juicing" lose me right there.
Its as obnoxious and arrogant a thing that anyone could do.

I agree with you on this. I have no idea who is juicing and who isnt. Without 100% proff I dont think anyone should be calling anyone out.