Evolution You Can Believe In

re: Evolution You Can Believe In

old timer — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:17:53 GMT

Alex - I have an idea that could potentially help keep the many new, young fans who came to racing because of Rachel and Zen engaged in racing. NRTA essentially did nothing to promote them beyond the old guard of fans! How about organizing tours for next spring to see the Queens and their babies? And, maybe visit the Daddies too, and the horse park, to teach a little racing history. Some folks just don't have the resources to fly all over the country to see their favorites. Keep the tours reasonable. Several friends and I went to the Spa to see Rachel but we could never travel to see Zen. This is one small rural NYS area. How many others are there across the country who would love such a tour?

re: Evolution You Can Believe In

goodwin — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 16:59:57 GMT

Uh...just another reason to throw out all the fractured, self-interests kangaroo court jurisdictions and have a NATIONAL entity to regulate the whole sport. It is unbelievable that no one thought to share vet lists. Incomprehensible, when you think about it...

re: Evolution You Can Believe In

Rachel — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:00:21 GMT

Good for you guys...maybe, just maybe...

The Life At Ten situation? They want us to forget about it...personally, I think it falls under RICO.

re: Evolution You Can Believe In

needler in Virginia — Sat, 19 Mar 2011 01:43:43 GMT

Well said, Auntie. I agree, and have been seeking these answers for years......only to be met with the old saws of "each state has its' own rules" or worse "there's no way we can require things like this". As "big" trainers seem to be paying lip service ONLY to rules, regulations and integrity, and not ALL tracks feel the need to be certified, it appears that racing continues to arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Not only do the right noises need to be made, but also racing needs to grow some REALLY big teeth. One single HUGE gorilla is required.......and THAT I don't see happening............EVER. The excuse will be that "there's no way to get everyone to agree", and that's not possible. Nope, you need the gorilla to make the rules and then you just gotta follow 'em. That means you have to take the bitter pill, gut up and follow the rules whether you like 'em or NOT.

I hope for cheers and safe trips, but that hope gets dimmer all the time.

re: Evolution You Can Believe In

tbpartnerperson43 — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:06:29 GMT

The next step, for the well being of the horses who come off the track to another career, will be for vets in their care to pass on the records to the new owner. When that can happen, we can be assured that the game as been cleaned up.

re: Evolution You Can Believe In

PomDeTerre — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:03:22 GMT

Changing the rules does not mean an automatic enforcement of them. If so, the Life At Ten debacle would hardly be mentioned. I believe in what is being done to protect the animals and all associated, but far stricted penalties need to be meted out and ENFORCED. As it stands now, Ms. Maggii Moss is calling her client JV, a "scapegoat" for the BC fiasco. Scapegoat? His admission of the mare's condition was heard by millions and serious enough to prompt TV producers to notify stewards. Enough with the slap on the wrist- sronger penalties in terms of days and dollars MUST be adhered to if this system is to work. As an aside, I wonder exactly what Ms. Moss would be saying if SHE were LAT's owner.

re: Evolution You Can Believe In

Zen's Auntie — Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:07:20 GMT

The changes looked to me like the way it easily could have and indeed should have been all along.

In fact some made me say "really, its not that way already?" the resounding good sense of the proposals make them sound like terrific new ideas.

The problem I see here is that you cant teach common sense and it is as difficult to enforce and regulate common sense as it is moral character. Both seem to be at task here.

I am not a naysayer and I know the obvious must be stated and the process must be tried. The new code revisions of course, sound like improvement, but it makes you wonder why is the Code in need of this much seemingly obvious revision in 2011 what other glaring holes exist, and how much is lipservice?