Again, I never said they should.
The NYT article is largely sensationalist drivel and holds less power than what some may think.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;6225838]
Again, I never said they should.
The NYT article is largely sensationalist drivel and holds less power than what some may think.[/QUOTE]
“Do they feel it enough to spend their money elsewhere?” I thought that is what you meant by this. It seemed you were implying that players don’t care about the horses. The horse’s welfare IS their priority, as sore or drugged horses make it difficult to handicap. Some state that they don’t want to be labeled by the public as uncaring because they bet on racing. Most just stated that they don’t want to see horses breaking down. Don’t forget these guys watch lots of races in a day and see more breakdowns than the average tracker even.
The article is only being taken seriously by those that are ara or those that just don’t know anything about current racing issues. It is a lot like the carriage issues in NY. The misinformed tend to follow ara’s lead.
Likewise posts by you and Rubyfree could be construed as meaning all players donate to rehoming organizations and cry over breakdowns. We all know the truth is somewhere in between. 
I’m sure some really are bothered by breakdowns…but for the majority not to the extent that they stop betting.
Further, there is a difference between being bothered by pain-masking drugs because it makes it difficult to handicap the horses (and thereby make money off them) and being bothered because the horse ultimately suffers.
Over and out for now.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;6225851]
Likewise posts by you and Rubyfree could be construed as meaning all players donate to rehoming organizations and cry over breakdowns. We all know the truth is somewhere in between.
I’m sure some really are bothered by breakdowns…but for the majority not to the extent that they stop betting.
Further, there is a difference between being bothered by pain-masking drugs because it makes it difficult to handicap the horses (and thereby make money off them) and being bothered because the horse ultimately suffers.
Over and out for now.[/QUOTE]
The vast majority of PLAYERS DO care about the welfare of the horse just because they care that it is a living breathing creature. I guess you should have spent more time trying to get to know some of these good people before you painted them as only interested in the money end of it.
Again why should they stop betting because they care? Breakdowns are not the norm. 1-2 per 1000 starts is not often. They feel the same as all involved and want the number to be 0. But as an Eventer you should know that would be impossible.
How many injuries,deaths per 1000 upper level Event runs would you say happen? Not per year but per 1000. Not enough for you to quit? How many would be enough?
Don’t you try and improve your preferred sport while you enjoy it? Why can’t they do the same? They have formed their own alliance just so they can have their voices heard about racing issues.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;6225838]
Again, I never said they should.
The NYT article is largely sensationalist drivel and holds less power than what some may think.[/QUOTE]
Ah, Barnfairy & Lifesabreeze, we’re just confusing topics here.
My post was a response to Marginall’s statement that “degenerate gamblers don’t care about horses, therefore owners and trainers have no reason to.”
I agree that the article is largely sensationalist drivel and will not sway horseplayers.
It’s not the horse players I’m (or, I think, anyone else) is concerned about RE the impact of the article. It is, as has been said up thread, the animal rights nutsos and the general public who may unknowingly lean in that direction.
The article is barely not propaganda.
Um, we have banned the use of drugs in competition, almost entirely (eventing). We are funding research studies into some of the health issues that have caused fatal equine events. We have introduced 3 types of frangible obstacles to reduce the risk of rotational falls.
I don’t think it does racing any good at all to insist that all is being done that could be done or that some other discipline is not lily white. The former is patently untrue and the second is irrelevant to issues specific to racing.
If, as you insist, no one is taking the NYT article seriously except “ara” people, why then did the Times report today that the Jockey Club will “propose a ban on the use of drugs for horses on race day, along with stiff penalties…”?
Both Arizona and NM officials are quoted in the article as having been specifically galvanized into action due to the first article that you say no one took seriously.
A more defensible position might have been to say that although you found the article sensationalist and inaccurate, it could play a useful role in getting positive concrete action towards better protection of horses and riders in the industry.
This, of course, is not a unique story. Change can and does often come about because of the bright light of attention, even if that attention is not entirely well-informed (or even well-intentioned).
[QUOTE=asterix;6226025]
Um, we have banned the use of drugs in competition, almost entirely (eventing). We are funding research studies into some of the health issues that have caused fatal equine events. We have introduced 3 types of frangible obstacles to reduce the risk of rotational falls.
I don’t think it does racing any good at all to insist that all is being done that could be done or that some other discipline is not lily white. The former is patently untrue and the second is irrelevant to issues specific to racing.
If, as you insist, no one is taking the NYT article seriously except “ara” people, why then did the Times report today that the Jockey Club will “propose a ban on the use of drugs for horses on race day, along with stiff penalties…”?
Both Arizona and NM officials are quoted in the article as having been specifically galvanized into action due to the first article that you say no one took seriously.
A more defensible position might have been to say that although you found the article sensationalist and inaccurate, it could play a useful role in getting positive concrete action towards better protection of horses and riders in the industry.
This, of course, is not a unique story. Change can and does often come about because of the bright light of attention, even if that attention is not entirely well-informed (or even well-intentioned).[/QUOTE]
Of course it doesn’t do any GOOD to point out that racing is, in many ways, far ahead of the equine-welfare game as compared to other horse sports, but I feel the need to point it out when discussing the issues with sport horse folks because there are those who seem to think their glass house is on a pedestal or something. I may have my metaphors all jibbled up there.
For the record, I am a “sport horse folk”.
I highly doubt anyone is insisting that all that could be done is being done. The point is that the issues at hand are myriad and unbelievably complex. That doesn’t mean that things have not been done, are not in the works, or will not be done- just that it’s hardly as black & white as the article makes it seem and that change WILL take time.
It’s fine and dandy for TJC to propose a ban with stiff penalties. Won’t be the first time such a thing has been proposed, and those occurrences far predate the article. TJC has NO jurisdiction over racing. None. There is no national body governing racing. This rather significant fact was gently glossed over in the article. The call for “racing” to “ban drugs”, as presented in the article, makes it sound like there’s some board room full of Rich Uncle Pennybags-types somewhere in KY who are stuffing benjamins in their ears and squealing “LALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU OVER ALL MY MONEY!” Who, exactly, is supposed to make the separate jurisdictions comply? Their Mommy’s?
As for the politicians- well, politicians just love to latch onto hot-button topics, don’t they?
I absolutely agree that there are massive problems in US racing right now and we need to act quickly to salvage the sport. I absolutely agree that change and reform often come about as the result of bad PR. However, there is plenty of valid, legitimate data out there to condemn the sport with, thankyouverymuch. Resorting to half-truths, shoddily researched statistics and inflammatory prose & pictures to present that case is, at best, a bit of a bi*** move, especially from a publication with the reputation of the times.
This is so frustrating to me. It’s clearly been an issue for years, and it seems like everyone in the industry says “we need an NGB” but it seems like no headway has been made in that direction at all.
My point, once again, is that the handicapper’s priority is making money. I never said it was their only interest. Nor did I ever say there was anything wrong with making money.
This is a business for them and they are not making decisions based on emotion. I’m not preaching morality here. The reason this is relevant is that the article is not going to hit racing in the wallet.
It is the responsibility of owners to care for the horses. Where the business aspect of things get gray is when we have owners making decisions based on chasing profit to the detriment of the horse’s health. The NYT article will do nothing to change that either, since anyone other than a rara will discredit the entire thing because the data is faulty.
[QUOTE=caffeinated;6226089]
This is so frustrating to me. It’s clearly been an issue for years, and it seems like everyone in the industry says “we need an NGB” but it seems like no headway has been made in that direction at all.[/QUOTE]
It is entirely maddening but consider the culture. This is, in many ways, not that different from the ongoing political discussion of state rights vs. federal oversight. It’s a big danged country, chock full of people who value their independence and are willing to back that value up with a shotgun.
Racing is obviously a much smaller culture but it is certainly a tidy little cross section and after a lifetime or four of doing things their own way, it’s very difficult to get everyone to come to the table and make some compromises for the greater good.
What will happen, of course, if racing can’t get everyone to check their ego’s at the door and get a governing body established is that the feds will take over and- well, how many major race folks are there in the federal government, do you suppose?
Again, so many issues, so tangled together, but we’ve got to start somewhere, and we’ve got to do it quick. I think a NGB is the way to start, but as of yet no one has asked me.
[QUOTE=asterix;6226025]
Um, we have banned the use of drugs in competition, almost entirely (eventing). We are funding research studies into some of the health issues that have caused fatal equine events. We have introduced 3 types of frangible obstacles to reduce the risk of rotational falls.
I don’t think it does racing any good at all to insist that all is being done that could be done or that some other discipline is not lily white. The former is patently untrue and the second is irrelevant to issues specific to racing.
If, as you insist, no one is taking the NYT article seriously except “ara” people, why then did the Times report today that the Jockey Club will “propose a ban on the use of drugs for horses on race day, along with stiff penalties…”?
Both Arizona and NM officials are quoted in the article as having been specifically galvanized into action due to the first article that you say no one took seriously.
A more defensible position might have been to say that although you found the article sensationalist and inaccurate, it could play a useful role in getting positive concrete action towards better protection of horses and riders in the industry.
This, of course, is not a unique story. Change can and does often come about because of the bright light of attention, even if that attention is not entirely well-informed (or even well-intentioned).[/QUOTE]
Um how about this Chrono article:
http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/carolina-gold-newest-face-old-problem
or this:
http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/are-drug-rules-putting-our-horses-greater-danger
These are from a quick search just on this site.
Do you honestly believe that Sport Horse industry does not have drug issues?
How many horses per competition are tested? What are the tolerable levels? Are all your fences collapsable upon impact? Out of 1000 runs,how many are injured to the point that they cannot compete at the upper levels or have to be put down due to their injuries?
I only point to Eventing because a poster said it was her sport of choice. I am well aware of some of the changes within Eventing,but it is far from drug,injury and breakdown free. My point is that all horse sports are improving conditions for their horses even the ones where money from the “uncaring” bettors has no pull.
How would you feel if Eventing injuries/breakdowns were calculated by using a non-horsemen’s opinion of what they saw during the run. The chart writers rarely ask vets,stewards or trainers why the horse was vanned off etc. Chart writers are rarely horsemen.
Saratoga’s track is known for being one of the kindest tracks for horses to race over. Even the new synthetic surfaces have not proved to be a better surface. Yet that article says it has more incidents than FL.
If the article stated it was about QH racing I would not be on here defending as hard. The numbers are double or more for injuries/breakdowns and drug abuse with the Quarters. It is very much a regional issue. Az and NM have been making changes well ahead of this article. They recently banned the use of clenbuteral (sp).
Anyone that is involved in Sport Horses should not point fingers at flat racing until their own sport is injury,abuse,breakdown and drug free. We do not have a national governing body to oversee racing. Most of us want one so we can bring ALL racing up to the levels of horsemenship most tracks expect from their trainers etc. Even with a governing body, H/J,Dressage,Eventing has issues of drugs and breakdowns,injuries and abuse. I hope the racing industry comes up with a body with more teeth than the Sport Horse world has.
I didn’t post negative comments in the Eventing forums when collapsible fences and shorter formats etc were first being discussed. I only posted to defend Eventers’ right to clean up their own sport in the manner they felt was useful. I saw that those involved were attempting to correct the issues. Eventing had it’s head buried in the sand for years just as racing did. Both are now trying to improve their sports.
I assumed,wrongly it seems, that all Sport Horse people would be up on all that the TB industry is doing to better all horse sports. I know I follow all the issues with tranqs in H/J, rollkur in Dressage, rotational falls in Eventing.
They may have solutions that could benefit my sport of choice.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;6226097]
My point, once again, is that the handicapper’s priority is making money. I never said it was their only interest. Nor did I ever say there was anything wrong with making money.
This is a business for them and they are not making decisions based on emotion. I’m not preaching morality here. The reason this is relevant is that the article is not going to hit racing in the wallet.
It is the responsibility of owners to care for the horses. Where the business aspect of things get gray is when we have owners making decisions based on chasing profit to the detriment of the horse’s health. The NYT article will do nothing to change that either, since anyone other than a rara will discredit the entire thing because the data is faulty.[/QUOTE]
So? Is the welfare of the horse top priority in the Sport Horse world? or is it money? I would think it depends on the person and I would not lump any group into one camp or the other.
Handicappers do not want to bet on tracks with high breakdowns rates,they did turn to other tracks when it has happened in the past. They do take their money elsewhere and do feel for the horses. Why do you insist on making players out to be money first and horse welfare second type of people?
This article will not make them stop betting only because they are well aware that it is BS. They watch thousands of races and discuss each ease,pullup,spill and breakdown in depth. Please do not paint all 'cappers by the few “money first” players you seem to know.
Why are you so offended by what I have written? I don’t think I’ve painted anyone in a derogatory light; just realistic.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;6227496]
Why are you so offended by what I have written? I don’t think I’ve painted anyone in a derogatory light; just realistic.[/QUOTE]
I don’t agree with your assessment of how 'cappers feel about the horses in horseracing. You say the majority care more about their money and I say that the thousands I have met over the last 36 years care more about the horse.
It is the use of the word majority. Perhaps you know too few for an accurate count?
There is just no refuting the fact that handicapping is about making money. 'And there’s nothing wrong with that.
If you take offense to that, it’s your problem.
For the players I don’t know, I’m sure they can find what I have written here just as easily as I can find their posts on forums elsewhere. They are free to defend themselves if need be.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;6227527]
There is just no refuting the fact that handicapping is about making money. 'And there’s nothing wrong with that.
If you take offense to that, it’s your problem.
For the players I don’t know, I’m sure they can find what I have written here just as easily as I can find their posts on forums elsewhere. They are free to defend themselves if need be.[/QUOTE]
I am a 'capper and I am defending 'cappers.
Are you saying that your horse sport of choice is not about money? All upper level Horse Sports are about money. That doesn’t mean that the MAJORITY of those that make or lose money at it do not care about the horses involved.
Why do feel the need to paint a group of people as uncaring about horses just because they gamble?
I never said they were uncaring.
As for my “sport of choice”? Over the last decade I have followed thoroughbred racing more closely than any other horse sport.
Getting back on topic:
I will say the article has generated quite a bit of discussion on all sides, and that IS a good thing. Time will tell on positive concrete action.
cheers!!
The majority of 'cappers care more about the horses than they do about their money,sorry you haven’t met many.
You stated that the majority cared more about the money.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;6227496]
Why are you so offended by what I have written? I don’t think I’ve painted anyone in a derogatory light; just realistic.[/QUOTE]
Cheers! Wendy, your views have been one of the most realistic opinions on these boards.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;6227589]
I never said they were uncaring.
As for my “sport of choice”? Over the last decade I have followed thoroughbred racing more closely than any other horse sport.
Getting back on topic:I will say the article has generated quite a bit of discussion on all sides, and that IS a good thing. Time will tell on positive concrete action.[/QUOTE]
Action has been taken long before this article.
