[QUOTE=DLee;6229006]
If lifesabreeze is an ambassador for racing, no wonder it is in trouble.[/QUOTE]
Why is that? Have you tried some of the links I have provided so you can learn more about my sport? Do you have a horse sport that you care about? How would you feel if misinformation was being spread about it? How would you feel if someone were intent on bashing it?
Or are you another ara and feel insulted by that label?
please don’t tell me your sport is Eventing
more that RACING is doing to limit injuries and breakdowns
More info as to what RACING is trying to do to cut back on injuries and breakdowns
“Among the main tenets of the Reformed Racing Medication Rules:
• Horses should be allowed to compete only when free from the influences of medication;
• Medications permitted in the race horse are subjected to stricter regulatory thresholds with increased recommended withdrawal times;
• Furosemide (Salix, also commonly called Lasix) is currently prohibited although this may go through a transitional process;
• Only RMTC-accredited laboratories are permitted to test samples, with results available to the public;
• Medication violations result in points that accumulate to trigger stronger sanctions for repeat violations; up to lifetime suspensions;
• Medication histories for all horses available for review;
• Contact with a horse within 24 hours of post time of the race shall be subject to surveillance; certain regulations, and track ship-in policies may be subject to adjustment;
• Reciprocal enforcement of uniform mandatory rest periods among racing regulatory authorities for horses with symptoms of exercise induced pulmonary hemorrhage;
• Expansion of regulatory authority to include all jurisdictions where official “workouts” are conducted;
• Administration and withdrawal guidelines are published for all approved therapeutic medication subject to regulatory control; and
• Best practices for improved security and monitoring of “in today” horses are provided for guidance to racing associations.”
“Dan Metzger, the president of the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, said, “The Reformed Racing Medication Rules provide a reasonable and common sense approach to achieve uniformity and impose severe penalties on those who repeatedly violate rules. Adoption of these revised rules will provide our industry with necessary, responsible and positive reform.””
[QUOTE=lifesabreeze;6229081]
More info as to what RACING is trying to do to cut back on injuries and breakdowns
“Among the main tenets of the Reformed Racing Medication Rules:
• Horses should be allowed to compete only when free from the influences of medication;
• Medications permitted in the race horse are subjected to stricter regulatory thresholds with increased recommended withdrawal times;
• Furosemide (Salix, also commonly called Lasix) is currently prohibited although this may go through a transitional process;
• Only RMTC-accredited laboratories are permitted to test samples, with results available to the public;
• Medication violations result in points that accumulate to trigger stronger sanctions for repeat violations; up to lifetime suspensions;
• Medication histories for all horses available for review;
• Contact with a horse within 24 hours of post time of the race shall be subject to surveillance; certain regulations, and track ship-in policies may be subject to adjustment;
• Reciprocal enforcement of uniform mandatory rest periods among racing regulatory authorities for horses with symptoms of exercise induced pulmonary hemorrhage;
• Expansion of regulatory authority to include all jurisdictions where official “workouts” are conducted;
• Administration and withdrawal guidelines are published for all approved therapeutic medication subject to regulatory control; and
• Best practices for improved security and monitoring of “in today” horses are provided for guidance to racing associations.”
“Dan Metzger, the president of the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, said, “The Reformed Racing Medication Rules provide a reasonable and common sense approach to achieve uniformity and impose severe penalties on those who repeatedly violate rules. Adoption of these revised rules will provide our industry with necessary, responsible and positive reform.””[/QUOTE]
The corner will be turned if a state commission actually had the stones to go out on a limb and implement these suggestions. State racing commissions are patronage jobs- they don’t want cause a stress for themselves by moving very far away from the status quo.
[QUOTE=Introspect;6229148]
The corner will be turned if a state commission actually had the stones to go out on a limb and implement these suggestions. State racing commissions are patronage jobs- they don’t want cause a stress for themselves by moving very far away from the status quo.[/QUOTE]
The status quo has changed direction in the past few years. It is now the majority that want these rules implemented. I have been trying to show this with my previous posts.
As others have stated, what we as an industry want and what we can actually implement are two different things. Most feel that a national regulating body would speed up our desires.
NY is one state that is leaning heavily in this direction. We were one of the last to allow bute and lasix. I am hoping we can be a leader in showing how racing should be done. We have a bit of a unique racing entity here with,what it seems like,many overseers. It seems they are all on the same page and are eager to get this rolling.
The ban on salix is at about 50-50. Some feel it will be harder on the horses as bleeding may increase. I personally prefer lasix free racing,but I started training in Ontario when it was not allowed there so know of many good horsemenship practices to keep them from bleeding. Most of todays trainers have not had to develop programs to deal with a bleeder without the use of salix.
No disrespect meant to any other jurisdiction, I am “up” on NY racing news more than others.
This has been interesting reading alright. It’s amazing to follow this subject across a few forums and places like Facebook. Everyone wants reform but say things like but just minimal amounts of bute and Salix are ok. It’s not ok.
I know there’s good people in racing that care about the horses. The majority do. But that line gets blurred when before races horse’s are being tapped and injected. These aren’t claimers I’m talking about. Preventing pain or that’s just how you know how to train? Think training on bute and banamine doesn’t mask pain? I nearly got fired for refusing to breeze a horse with a slab. Someone else did and he was fine. Was pulled up in a race and walked home. So he wouldn’t have been included in the statistics.
Trust me I get these are big expensive animals that owners need to see some return on. But even with the allowed meds many don’t make it. So a level playing field means healthier horses will be winning. Lifeisabreeze states that he/she trained in Ontario without lasix. It can be done. It is done elsewhere. You just have to have a different plan of action in place and accept that some, but very few, can’t race due to bleeding. For a start a fitter better foundation horse helps. Considering horses are on a flat pristine surface they should be doing more than a mile or even mile and 1/4 gallops.
I’ve had a chance to be involved in racing in 2 very different places. Trust me there is good and bad everywhere. I think the Euros have more of a tool bag to choose from, read not better trainers. Look it when they start slagging off American racing I defend. It’s hard to defend the drug use though but I point out other things.
The time has come for one governing body. For stiffer sanctions against people who constantly break rules. For no running and training on meds. Which means drugs need to clear the system before running. Doesn’t mean they have to be in pain.
I’m not trying to attack here. Just saying change needs to take place. There will still be breakdowns. Simply saying well horses still breakdown in places without drugs is a copout. Horses break legs in fields running around like idiots. Crap happens to these big fragile creatures.
Terri
[QUOTE=Equilibrium;6229240]
This has been interesting reading alright. It’s amazing to follow this subject across a few forums and places like Facebook. Everyone wants reform but say things like but just minimal amounts of bute and Salix are ok. It’s not ok.
I know there’s good people in racing that care about the horses. The majority do. But that line gets blurred when before races horse’s are being tapped and injected. These aren’t claimers I’m talking about. Preventing pain or that’s just how you know how to train? Think training on bute and banamine doesn’t mask pain? I nearly got fired for refusing to breeze a horse with a slab. Someone else did and he was fine. Was pulled up in a race and walked home. So he wouldn’t have been included in the statistics.
Trust me I get these are big expensive animals that owners need to see some return on. But even with the allowed meds many don’t make it. So a level playing field means healthier horses will be winning. Lifeisabreeze states that he/she trained in Ontario without lasix. It can be done. It is done elsewhere. You just have to have a different plan of action in place and accept that some, but very few, can’t race due to bleeding. For a start a fitter better foundation horse helps. Considering horses are on a flat pristine surface they should be doing more than a mile or even mile and 1/4 gallops.
I’ve had a chance to be involved in racing in 2 very different places. Trust me there is good and bad everywhere. I think the Euros have more of a tool bag to choose from, read not better trainers. Look it when they start slagging off American racing I defend. It’s hard to defend the drug use though but I point out other things.
The time has come for one governing body. For stiffer sanctions against people who constantly break rules. For no running and training on meds. Which means drugs need to clear the system before running. Doesn’t mean they have to be in pain.
I’m not trying to attack here. Just saying change needs to take place. There will still be breakdowns. Simply saying well horses still breakdown in places without drugs is a copout. Horses break legs in fields running around like idiots. Crap happens to these big fragile creatures.
Terri[/QUOTE]
I don’t see an attack at all. I have been weary of the posts that paint the majority as uncaring about the horses or unwilling to speak up and try for any changes. The bad apples are the minority and more and more are speaking out against them.
As you suggest,we need a national governing body to set the rules.
I agree a fitter foundation is definitely key to preventing bleeding. I saw more 2-3 mile gallops back then. Most times at least a 7/8 trot warm up. Now, to the gap and gone.
I rode my own and always jogged a mile before I turned around to gallop. Then I would gallop a slow steady one before I decided if I was going to pick up the pace for the second mile.
I’m a she.
[QUOTE=summerhorse;6216338]
As for Archarcharch he DID break a leg and it DID end his career and if he had not been such a nice horse his options may have been very limited. Luckily he was worth money as a stallion prospect.
.[/QUOTE]
Truth
[QUOTE=Neigh-Neigh;6229265]
Truth[/QUOTE]
So how does this fit the article"s abuse angle on horseracing? What happened with ArchArchArch that was abusive? What should have been done prior to his running to have prevented this from happening? How is the industry lax in relation to this injury? What lack of regulation allowed this to happen? What change should be made to prevent this from ever occurring again?
It was not a catastrophic injury so how do you know he would not have had pins put in by a different owner? Many an owner has had the surgery done just so the horse can go on to another career or even continue to race if it heals well.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/62956/injured-archarcharch-retired-owner-says
"Archarcharch, by Arch , had pins inserted to repair the fracture following a 15th-place finish in the Derby, and Fires said then that the colt’s racing future was uncertain. Fires said Bramlage found more extensive problems.
Fires also said Bramlage was certain the injury occurred when the colt stumbled leaving the gate."
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/62952/graham-motion-yesterday-was-surreal
"Dr. Larry Bramlage will perform the surgery on the clean break.
Fires said he could not speculate on whether Archarcharch could return to the races. Bramlage “says you really don’t know (about a return to the races) until you go in there and see,” Fires said. “But he ran a mile and a quarter on it.”
Court was at the barn at 6:15 Sunday morning “to check on the big horse.”
“I’m just heart-broken,” Court said. “You are not supposed to get attached to the horses, but, c’mon, this horse, with the owners and everybody, it feels like a knife to the gut."
I apologize ahead of time if this is rambling. When it comes to racing, so many thoughts just pop in…
[QUOTE=lifesabreeze;6228533]
CVPeg you really should consider finding new seats. It seems you are surrounded by some of the bad apples. No need to paint all the 'cappers with the same brush.
There are quite a few good,honest partnerships out there,you have to be savvy and shop around,do some research.[/QUOTE]
Well, “in the seats” certainly isn’t where I’m limited to observing from. 
But telling me to find different seats perhaps illustrates that you choose not to be cognizant of everyone around you either. Pretty hard to miss 'em.
And I did preface my remarks by saying one can’t generalize about all, but there certainly is an attitude of betting arrogance that didn’t previously exist. Which I think is part of the general callousness supporting the “whatever I can get away with attitude”. Now perhaps more necessary among those having to answer to the groups of little people paying those monthly cash calls, or expecting to “not have to pay”, as marketed by so many now.
If one doesn’t have to pay for a horse, how are they self sustaining? By everyone winning? No, by running through an incessant number of horses looking for the next hope, and forgetting what really happened to the ones they just had. Or ownership/“managing” stated as some individual’s role on the track when they are really justifying their betting under another title. (I am not saying this to condemn betting, just those who don’t admit what they’re doing under the guise of something else, and by taking out of others’ pockets.)
Add another dimension - these arrogant types that now know so much they become trainers. You should know - they are dotted throughout Saratoga County and beyond. But they’ve never even held a hoof in their hands before they apply for a license and start shopping.
[QUOTE=lifesabreeze;6228906]An immediate reaction to an increase in breakdowns, those IN the industry want to know why and want it to stop
"In response to recent equine deaths at Aqueduct Racetrack, regulators in New York are poised to adopt a rule voiding claiming race sales of horses that die during a claiming event or are euthanized on-track after a race.
The New York State Racing and Wagering Board will be holding an emergency meeting April 2 to consider, and almost certainly, adopt the new, 22-word addition to the state’s racing regulations.
The rule change simply notes that "a claim shall be void for any horse that dies during a race or is euthanized on the track following a race.’’
The rule would affect all Thoroughbred tracks in New York.
Investigators have been examining a whole host of possible factors for the 21 equine deaths during the winter meet at Aqueduct, including track conditions, trainers, jockeys, and medical condition of the horses. Whether there are any connections between claiming races and the deaths has also been a growing source of review by state regulators.
"This change is in response to an increase in fatalities at Aqueduct,’’ said a source at the racing board who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The official noted that the review by the board of the equine deaths is ongoing and that more rule changes affecting the industry could be on the way."[/QUOTE]
Fantastic. But certainly hope that it can become strengthened. What about those put down several days later when the full extent of injuries become apparent? Especially when dropped well down…
Amen. And Cuomo right now is shaking up New York State by consolidating numerous agencies. Under this week’s recently passed budget, the Racing & Wagering board is about to come under the same blanket as the lottery, and proposed casino applications, etc. Do I believe they are going to have anyone with appropriate racing knowledge newly within their ranks? Hardly - although I would wish that new appointees would know not only the law, but the logistical implications of new regs, and how to oversee them. But if infractions just continue to get lost in the appeals’ process, nothing will change.
“Five of the commission’s members will be appointed by the governor, one by the Senate majority leader and one by the Assembly speaker; all would be subject to Senate confirmation.” http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120328/NEWS/203280338/-1/SITEMAP
They’ve already combined the Insurance and Banking departments, creating a new Office of Financial Services that is abysmal in servicing the public. Applications and correspondence previously addressed within days, are now lingering for weeks.
Bottom line, you know everyone does have a dream, but it isn’t always for everyone when it comes to owning and training racehorses. And some need to stop and think twice before jumping in, and adding to the statistics.
[QUOTE=CVPeg;6229281]
I apologize ahead of time if this is rambling. When it comes to racing, so many thoughts just pop in…
Well, “in the seats” certainly isn’t where I’m limited to observing from. But telling me to find different seats perhaps illustrates that you choose not to be cognizant of everyone around you either. Pretty hard to miss 'em.
And I did preface my remarks by saying one can’t generalize about all, but there certainly is an attitude of betting arrogance that didn’t previously exist. Which I think is part of the general callousness supporting the “whatever I can get away with attitude”. Now perhaps more necessary among those having to answer to the groups of little people paying those monthly cash calls, or expecting to “not have to pay”, as marketed by so many now.
If one doesn’t have to pay for a horse, how are they self sustaining? By everyone winning? No, by running through an incessant number of horses looking for the next hope, and forgetting what really happened to the ones they just had. Or ownership/“managing” stated as some individual’s role on the track when they are really justifying their betting under another title. (I am not saying this to condemn betting, just those who don’t admit what they’re doing under the guise of something else, and by taking out of others’ pockets.)
Add another dimension - these arrogant types that now know so much they become trainers. You should know - they are dotted throughout Saratoga County and beyond. But they’ve never even held a hoof in their hands before they apply for a license and start shopping.
Fantastic. But certainly hope that it can become strengthened. What about those put down several days later when the full extent of injuries become apparent? Especially when dropped well down…
Amen. And Cuomo right now is shaking up New York State by consolidating numerous agencies. Under this week’s recently passed budget, the Racing & Wagering board is about to come under the same blanket as the lottery, and proposed casino applications, etc. Do I believe they are going to have anyone with appropriate racing knowledge newly within their ranks? Hardly - although I would wish that new appointees would know not only the law, but the logistical implications of new regs, and how to oversee them. But if infractions just continue to get lost in the appeals’ process, nothing will change.
“Five of the commission’s members will be appointed by the governor, one by the Senate majority leader and one by the Assembly speaker; all would be subject to Senate confirmation.” http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120328/NEWS/203280338/-1/SITEMAP
They’ve already combined the Insurance and Banking departments, creating a new Office of Financial Services that is abysmal in servicing the public. Applications and correspondence previously addressed within days, are now lingering for weeks.
Bottom line, you know everyone does have a dream, but it isn’t always for everyone when it comes to owning and training racehorses. And some need to stop and think twice before jumping in, and adding to the statistics.[/QUOTE]
You make some excellent points and observations. If you will tolerate my rambling I will tolerate yours.
I’m not so sure about combining casinos and racing into one commission. I have worked in the casino industry and they have enough issues of their own to deal with. Not so sure saving some office space is the answer there. But…
Coumo does act as if he cares about the image of racing in NY and seems set on
finding answers to the recent rash of breakdowns. He does like to demand answers and solutions.
Claiming prices are being raised and the purses are being dropped at the bottom level. They are looking at doing as Cali and changing the claim rules as to a horse breaking down when claimed. I believe that includes a time window of euth after the claim. All this was a quick reaction to the increase in breakdowns at Aqueduct this past meet.
Are they the solution? We shall see if it helps. My point with all these defensive posts is that racing is trying to change. Some changes are easy and quick to implement, some are not.
I also do not see a majority in racing as “money first care about the horse second” type of people as is being said by a few on this thread. Others that have posted here as well as myself, see quite the opposite around them.
There are great partnerships out there and there are bad ones. No need to judge all by your few experiences. You seem to be a magnet for the bad ones by your description of those in racing that you have encountered. That was why I suggested you change seats. It was a metaphor to suggest you need to meet more trackers before you judge all of us.
I hope the few have not soured you forever on racing. It is an exciting sport with many good people who do care about their horses.
[QUOTE=lifesabreeze;6229288]
I hope the few have not soured you forever on racing. It is an exciting sport with many good people who do care about their horses.[/QUOTE]
Oh, after a lifetime of horses and involvement, I’ll never be soured at all by the racing - have been sad that recent years have divulged a not so nice side to some individuals’ ulterior motives - so it has opened my eyes to perhaps, the seedier side. And perhaps what I have seen has also been because I have dug past the exterior a bit when becoming involved, and not all answers or explanations make sense to a person with horse experience. And that often those without much horse knowledge don’t necessarily question.
Sadly not all of what I’ve seen has been as a result of one association. I keep running into others with “racing experience” whose resume wouldn’t impress too many once you asked a few questions. They certainly wouldn’t be able to keep up a conversation on a COTH thread ;)! But they do add to the problem, as do those who are involved who don’t plan ahead for adequate retirements, layoffs, etc. Really a consideration with the increased numbers of TBs, and the fact that they are no longer the go to horse in H/J competition, plus the myriad other negative factors out there.
But no, I’ve breathed the same air as horses for as long as I can remember - just hope that all the best efforts create some kind of positive turn. It is the horse, after all, who is ultimately feeling the end result of the decisions of so many.
[QUOTE=CVPeg;6229293]
Oh, after a lifetime of horses and involvement, I’ll never be soured at all by the racing - have been sad that recent years have divulged a not so nice side to some individuals’ ulterior motives - so it has opened my eyes to perhaps, the seedier side. And perhaps what I have seen has also been because I have dug past the exterior a bit when becoming involved, and not all answers or explanations make sense to a person with horse experience. And that often those without much horse knowledge don’t necessarily question.
Sadly not all of what I’ve seen has been as a result of one association. I keep running into others with “racing experience” whose resume wouldn’t impress too many once you asked a few questions. They certainly wouldn’t be able to keep up a conversation on a COTH thread ;)! But they do add to the problem, as do those who are involved who don’t plan ahead for adequate retirements, layoffs, etc. Really a consideration with the increased numbers of TBs, and the fact that they are no longer the go to horse in H/J competition, plus the myriad other negative factors out there.
But no, I’ve breathed the same air as horses for as long as I can remember - just hope that all the best efforts create some kind of positive turn. It is the horse, after all, who is ultimately feeling the end result of the decisions of so many.[/QUOTE]
You truly should shop around,there are many partnerships and/or trainers that do all that you state you wish they would do.
What you describe happens in all horse disciplines. I’m surprised that you seem to think it is limited to racing. Or do you feel these same issues are also in whichever other horse sports you do enjoy?
Perhaps you feel all horses are an owner’s responsibility for their entire lives? Do you believe it to be ok for competitors to trade up their mounts as they themselves pursue tougher competitions? Is it ok if they sell those horses if they get injured while pursuing their dreams?
I’ve been working on a plan for a partnership for some time now, but one that considers the retirement, or a bottom line below which one won’t drop a horse simply because they aren’t keeping the partnership constantly in the black - which seems to me lately, an unreasonable expectation - in spite of all the admonitions and “warnings” that racing isn’t exactly lucrative.
And personally, I will plan, for future placements’ rights of first refusal, and would be proactive in following up to see where a horse lands. But all of this planning adds to the principal required, and may not be everyone’s cup of tea.
And yes, I have seen, and been involved with, some horror stories in years’ past of what’s happened to horses in other venues. Never said it’s limited to racing! Just happens to be the topic at hand. But that would be for several other threads. And I feel it’s fine for a horse to be sent forward - have done it with my own. But again, would now include a right of first refusal.
And I’m still here. Not putting blame out there as much as thinking out loud how I would try to do it differently. As you know, it’s not for the lighthearted.
1-10 on Barnfairy
Hello All,
I’ve been trying to keep my mouth shut through this trainwreck of a thread, but I no longer can.
First, since everyone suddenly seems to be into credentials, I’ve been a groom, exercise rider, QH apprentice jock, breeder, and owner. Additionally, I am a journalist who has written three books on horses and thousands of articles. I’m also a former USEF hunter/h/e judge and was Chairman of the USEF Breeders Committee. Now, I’m on the honorary board of The Exceller Fund.
Barnfairy is one of the most died-in-wool insiders and fans I know in the sport. She is the sort of person who is highly intelligent and knows the many angles of the main issues. She’s no faux or fake, she’s the real deal. I’d let her give a leg up on any of my TBs at any time because she has a big clue as to what is going on in the industry.
There are a lot of TB programs for both the horses and humans that are well and good in theory, but don’t work at every track. That’s just the way it is.
So, go ahead, take a shot at me. I don’t give a flying flip, nor will I bother to respond. I know who I am and who’s opinion matters, like BarnFairy’s.
In Barnfairy’s name I will now make a donation to The Exceller Fund.
Hallie I. McEvoy
Racing Dreams, LLC
Its hard to post on these threads if you look at racing objectively and honestly- if you dont defend everything about it rabidly, you get accused of being a know-nothing who just wants to trash the industry.
Its interesting about the whole partnership discussion. Now, I dont know much about that side of the business, but I guess i always assumed that most of the “owners” were non-horse people who had some money to invest and thought it would be fun to go the track and cheer on “their” horse, maybe make some money and have the Big Dream of making it to the Derby or Travers so they could wear the hats and go to the parties, etc… I highly doubt that they enter a partnership if they thought that they would be paying for the upkeep of a big pet for the next 20-25 years after it can no longer race. So I’m not surprised that they would want to unload a horse that cant perform and move on to the next.
There are just so many issues to be addressed when talking about racing.
Of course we need a national body that would set national rules, but there are a couple of problems with getting the federal government involved. First, it’s long been federal practice to stay out of gambling and leave it up to the individual states. Same kind of policy as alcohol after prohibition. Because gambling is a value laden concept and values really can’t be dictated by policy, the feds have always just stayed out of both gambling and alcohol and left it to the locals. that’s one reason there is no federal lottery like the Brits have to support their international sports.
I live in a state where we have casino gambling, but gambling on horse racing out of state is illegal and we have no lottery. Makes no sense to me, but it keeps the Hardshelled religionists happy.
So even if there is federal legislation, which really seems unlikely in today’s climate, it will probably be set to work through the states and their existing structures. The USDA has done a dreadful job of enforcing The Animal Welfare Act where show horses are concerned, and I simply cannot see them enforcing racing rules.
Now if the states that have racing would agree to accept the recommendations of a central organizing committee and implement them as a matter of course, that would work better. A National racing consortium of States with an interstate compact could work, but the individual states would have to be willing to delegate policy authority.
There is an article in the DRF today citing JC proposed medication rules. But the JC has no authority whatsoever and state racing authorities have no incentive to adopt JC proposals.
Structurally speaking, the whole mess is a mess.
Not picking a fight with you, Viney, 'cause you know I respect you, but isn’t the ATF a federal agency that has some responsibility for issues concerning alcohol? Yes, there are aspects that they have no say in, but others that they do. (And I’m fudging because I don’t know enough to be specific).
Based on reading this thread, it seems that some national standards with teeth and/ or absolute interstate reciprocity (which would require at least consistent minimum standards).
Crawling back to my cave now.
[QUOTE=lifesabreeze;6228771]
The race was run on turf, at 2 miles with a slow pace and with 0 drugs. So what issues should have been addressed there?
Your agenda is showing and you are very out of touch with racing issues.
cheers!
quack quack[/QUOTE]
I agree! So what can we tell the governing body in Dubai???
Quack
While the feds do have an agency devoted to alcohol and tobacco, it isn’t the ATF (I just researched it; didn’t have a clue before). ATF is a law enforcement agency in the DOJ that has a focus on arms and explosives and arson. It might get involved in tobacco and alcohol smuggling, but that’s far from its prime focus these days.
The agency that sets standards for alcohol and tobacco is in the Department of the Treasury and is called the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. Here are the laws that they operate under and the regs that they have passed to implement the laws:
http://www.ttb.gov/pdf/ttbp51008_laws_regs_act052007.pdf
I suppose a federal act requiring federal permits for trainers, owners, jocks, etc. and tracks would be somewhat comparable; but the racing industry already has permitting up the wazoo at the state level and it doesn’t seem to have been terribly effective as a control. HOWEVER, Congress has adopted something called the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act of 1988, and under that has established the National Indian Gaming Commission. IF (and Indians are peculiarly under federal control) they wanted to jump into racing, they could use the Indian Gaming setup as a model. It would require a very, very major shift in attitude from the policies set out in the Interstate Horse Racing Act.
There already is a federal Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, as amended, which has very little practical use; and here it is in toto:
15 U.S.C. 3001, et seq.
Last visited Jan. 26, 2005
§ 3001. Congressional findings and policy
(a) The Congress finds that:
(1) the States should have the primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders;
(2) the Federal Government should prevent interference by one State with the gambling policies of another, and should act to protect identifiable national interests; and
(3) in the limited area of interstate off-track wagering on horseraces, there is a need for Federal action to ensure States will continue to cooperate with one another in the acceptance of legal interstate wagers.
(b) It is the policy of the Congress in this chapter to regulate interstate commerce with respect to wagering on horseracing, in order to further the horseracing and legal off-track betting industries in the United States.
§ 3002. Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter the term:
(1) “person” means any individual, association, partnership, joint venture, corporation, State or political subdivision thereof, department, agency, or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision thereof, or any other organization or entity;
(2)“State” means each State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States;
(3) “interstate off-track wager” means a legal wager placed or accepted in one State with respect to the outcome of a horserace taking place in another State and includes pari-mutuel wagers, where lawful in each State involved, placed or transmitted by an individual in one State via telephone or other electronic media and accepted by an off-track betting system in the same or another State, as well as the combination of any pari-mutuel wagering pools;
(4) “on-track wager” means a wager with respect to the outcome of a horserace which is placed at the racetrack at which such horse- race takes place;
(5) “host State” means the State in which the horserace subject to the interstate wager takes place;
(6)“off-track State” means the State in which an interstate off-track wager is accepted;
(7) “off-track betting system” means any group which is in the business of accepting wagers on horseraces at locations other than the place where the horserace is run, which business is conducted by the State or licensed or otherwise permitted by State law;
(8)“off-track betting office” means any location within an off-track State at which off-track wagers are accepted;
(9) “host racing association” means any person who, pursuant to a license or other permission granted by the host State, conducts the horserace subject to the interstate wager;
(10) “host racing commission” means that person designated by State statute or, in the absence of statute, by regulation, with jurisdiction to regulate the conduct of racing within the host State;
(11)“off-track racing commission” means that person designated by State statute or, in the absence of statute, by regulation, with jurisdiction to regulate off-track betting in that State;
(12) “horsemen’s group” means, with reference to the applicable host racing association, the group which represents the majority of owners and trainers racing there, for the races subject to the interstate off-track wager on any racing day;
(13)“parimutuel” means any system whereby wagers with respect to the outcome of a horserace are placed with, or in, a wagering pool conducted by a person licensed or otherwise permitted to do so under State law, and in which the participants are wagering with each other and not against the operator;
(14) “currently operating tracks” means racing associations conducting parimutuel horseracing at the same time of day (afternoon against afternoon; nighttime against nighttime) as the racing association conducting the horseracing which is the subject of the interstate off-track wager;
(15) “race meeting” means those scheduled days during the year a racing association is granted permission by the appropriate State racing commission to conduct horseracing;
(16) “racing day” means a full program of races at a specified racing association on a specified day;
(17) “special event” means the specific individual horserace which is deemed by the off-track betting system to be of sufficient national significance and interest to warrant interstate off-track wagering on that event or events;
(18) “dark days” means those days when racing of the same type does not occur in an off-track State within 60 miles of an off-track betting office during a race meeting, including, but not limited to, a dark weekday when such racing association or associations run on Sunday, and days when a racing program is scheduled but does not take place, or cannot be completed due to weather, strikes and other factors not within the control of the off-track betting system;
(19) “year” means calendar year;
(20) “takeout” means that portion of a wager which is deducted from or not included in the parimutuel pool, and which is distributed to persons other than those placing wagers;
(21) “regular contractual process” means those negotiations by which the applicable horsemen’s group and host racing association reach agreements on issues regarding the conduct of horseracing by the horsemen’s group at that racing association;
(22)“terms and conditions” includes, but is not limited to, the percentage which is paid by the off-track betting system to the host racing association, the percentage which is paid by the host racing association to the horsemen’s group, as well as any arrangements as to the exclusivity between the host racing association and the off-track betting system.
§ 3003. Acceptance of interstate off-track wager
No person may accept an interstate off-track wager except as provided in this chapter.
§ 3004. Regulation of interstate off-track wagering
(a) Consent of host racing association, host racing commission, and off-track racing commission as prerequisite to acceptance of wager
An interstate off-track wager may be accepted by an off-track betting system only if consent is obtained from:
(1) the host racing association, except that:
(A) as a condition precedent to such consent, said racing association (except a not-for-profit racing association in a State where the distribution of off-track betting revenues in that State is set forth by law) must have a written agreement with the horsemen's group, under which said racing association may give such consent, setting forth the terms and conditions relating thereto; provided,
(B) that where the host racing association has a contract with a horsemen's group at the time of enactment of this chapter which contains no provisions referring to interstate off-track betting, the terms and conditions of said then-existing contract shall be deemed to apply to the interstate off-track wagers and no additional written agreement need be entered into unless the parties to such then-existing contract agree otherwise. Where such provisions exist in such existing contract, such contract shall govern. Where written consents exist at the time of enactment of this chapter between an off-track betting system and the host racing association providing for interstate off-track wagers, or such written consents are executed by these parties prior to the expiration of such then-existing contract, upon the expiration of such then-existing contract the written agreement of such horsemen's group shall thereafter be required as such condition precedent and as a part of the regular contractual process, and may not be withdrawn or varied except in the regular contractual process. Where no such written consent exists, and where such written agreement occurs at a racing association which has a regular contractual process with such horsemen's group, said agreement by the horsemen's group may not be withdrawn or varied except in the regular contractual process;
(2) the host racing commission;
(3) the off-track racing commission
(b) Approval of tracks as prerequisite to acceptance of wager; exceptions
(1) In addition to the requirement of subsection (a) of this section, any off-track betting office shall obtain the approval of:
(A) all currently operating tracks within 60 miles of such off-track betting office; and
(B) if there are no currently operating tracks within 60 miles then the closest currently operating track in an adjoining State.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection, any off-track betting office in a State with at least 250 days of on-track parimutuel horseracing a year, may accept interstate off-track wagers for a total of 60 racing days and 25 special events a year without the approval required by paragraph (1), if with respect to such 60 racing days, there is no racing of the same type at the same time of day being conducted within the off-track betting State within 60 miles of the off-track betting office accepting the wager, or such racing program cannot be completed. Excluded from such 60 days and from the consent required by subsection (b)(1) of this section may be dark days which occur during a regularly scheduled race meeting in said off-track betting State. In order to accept any interstate off-track wager under the terms of the preceding sentence the off-track betting office shall make identical offers to any racing association described in subparagraph (A) of subsection (b)(1) of this section. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to reduce or eliminate the necessity of obtaining all the approvals required by subsection (a) of this section.
© Takeout amount
No parimutuel off-track betting system may employ a takeout for an interstate wager which is greater than the takeout for corresponding wagering pools of off-track wagers on races run within the off-track State except where such greater takeout is authorized by State law in the off-track State.
§ 3005. Liability and damages
Any person accepting any interstate off-track wager in violation of this chapter shall be civilly liable for damages to the host State, the host racing association and the horsemen’s group. Damages for each violation shall be based on the total of off-track wagers as follows:
(1) If the interstate off-track wager was of a type accepted at the host racing association, damages shall be in an amount equal to that portion of the takeout which would have been distributed to the host State, host racing association and the horsemen's group, as if each such interstate off-track wager had been placed at the host racing association.
(2) If such interstate off-track wager was of a type not accepted at the host racing association, the amount of damages shall be determined at the rate of takeout prevailing at the off-track betting system for that type of wager and shall be distributed according to the same formulas as in paragraph (1) above.
§ 3006. Civil action
(a) Parties; remedies
The host State, the host racing association, or the horsemen’s group may commence a civil action against any person alleged to be in violation of this chapter, for injunctive relief to restrain violations and for damages in accordance with section 3005 of this title.
(b) Intervention
In any civil action under this section, the host State, the host racing association and horsemen’s group, if not a party, shall be permitted to intervene as a matter of right.
© Limitations
A civil action may not be commenced pursuant to this section more than 3 years after the discovery of the alleged violation upon which such civil action is based.
(d) State as defendant
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit a State to be sued under this section other than in accordance with its applicable laws.
§ 3007. Jurisdiction and venue
(a) District court jurisdiction
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action under this chapter, without regard to the citizenship of the parties or the amount in controversy.
(b) Venue; service of process
A civil action under this chapter may be brought in any district court of the United States for a district located in the host State or the off-track State, and all process in any such civil action may be served in any judicial district of the United States.
© Concurrent State court jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States pursuant to this section shall be concurrent with that of any State court of competent jurisdiction located in the host State or the off-track State.
End notes:
[232] See DC Appropriations, Pub. L. No. 106-553, § 629, 114 Stat. 2762A-108 (2000).
[233] 15 U.S.C. § 3002(3).
[234] 146 Cong. Rec. H 11230, 11232, 106th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2000).
[235] 5 U.S. Code & Cong. News., 106th Cong. 2nd Sess., 2457-2458 (2000).
[QUOTE=saratoga;6229868]
Its hard to post on these threads if you look at racing objectively and honestly- if you dont defend everything about it rabidly, you get accused of being a know-nothing who just wants to trash the industry.
Its interesting about the whole partnership discussion. Now, I dont know much about that side of the business, but I guess i always assumed that most of the “owners” were non-horse people who had some money to invest and thought it would be fun to go the track and cheer on “their” horse, maybe make some money and have the Big Dream of making it to the Derby or Travers so they could wear the hats and go to the parties, etc… I highly doubt that they enter a partnership if they thought that they would be paying for the upkeep of a big pet for the next 20-25 years after it can no longer race. So I’m not surprised that they would want to unload a horse that cant perform and move on to the next.[/QUOTE]
Most owners are people who love the sport. It is highly unlikely you will make money at it. If a horse is not winning it is dropped down in class so it can be competitive. The horses enjoy winning and it is the trainers job to place them where they can win.
Those that cannot compete are sold,same as most upper level Sport Horses.
There are many private owners that will only run in non-claiming races and will sell, off the track without papers, if they cannot compete to prevent them from being claimed to an uncertain future.
I will state again. The only posts I have issue with are those that try and paint ALL racetrackers with the same “uncaring about horses” brush.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use