By Ronald Maus
Seattle, Wash.
As a subscriber to The Blood-Horse, horse owner and
breeder, I would like to take a moment to offer a point of
view contrary to that held by Eric Mitchell, his TOBA handlers, and their
cousins at The Jockey Club.
My inspiration to speak up came
from trainer and New York Thoroughbred Horseman's Association president Rick
Violette Jr., whose this week bravely offered comments published in the Daily
Racing Form. Mr. Violette publicly questions the intent and ultimate
impact of The Jockey Club's continuing proselytization to its view of
medication and federalism. To Mr. Violette, I say, "Right on, brother."
Mr. Violette bravely and
directly addresses an ongoing "elephant in the room." The Jockey Club--through its essentially unheeded calls to arms (i.e. as identified in another online publication, less than 200 of the 40,000 licensed owners
and trainers in the country have signed on "The Pledge" to provide open records
on horse veterinarian treatment), as well as The Jockey Club's separate threat
in the coming summer to call for the federal government to oversee horseracing
if medication reform is not passed on its timetable--continuously tries to
dominate and "lead" an industry in which it actually does not participate.
Sure, it is likely that a number
of The Jockey Club's secret and select membership (ironically, isn't this the
same organization that presently calls for openness and transparency in all
other things?) do personally breed or own horses, but The Jockey Club itself
has but one primary identifiable function: horse registry services. Otherwise, The Jockey Club does not own a racetrack, it does not own a racing
horse in America, it does not train a single racing horse in America, and it
does not put on any races in America. (Yes, it owns information services
summarizing data created from the investments and efforts of the other
participants in the sport, from which it enjoys apparent substantial profit,
but The Jockey Club does not otherwise directly participate in the
sport). So, if the federal government is placed in lordship over racing
in America, one can only presume that it may too seek to take over horse
registry and data accumulation services, which may be the only profitable
aspect of the entire sport.
Even the very research that The
Jockey Club financially sponsored, leading to the seminal findings proving the
actual medical efficacy of Lasix in reducing exercise-induced pulmonary
bleeding in racehorses, it chooses to ignore. The Jockey Club ignores
this research, apparently, to command the version of racing's Bully Pulpit to
which it apparently believes it is singularly entitled. Who else but The
Jockey Club could be so brazen as to make clear through its chairman that it is
drawing a "line in the sand," daring other (actual) participants in racing to
get all medication rules uniformly passed by the end of August, or it will
raise its righteous hand upon them, and strike with a vengeance, using its
partner in monopoly, the United States Government, against the citizens of this
"industry"?
Problem is, racing is far from
being an "industry" in any sense of that word. It is in fact a collection
of numerous disparate self-interests, all competitive one against another at
every level, and generally aligned along areas of their own microeconomic
interests, such as breeders, trainers, vets, owners, racetrack operators,
advance deposit wagering platforms, regulators, and many more. This is
then sub-divided further into geographic regions, and states, and even to
competitors within certain states. Each of these various factions are in
constant--and often acrimonious--battle, trying to latch on to some part of
the wagered dollar. While there is little doubt that the current system
has and will ultimately prove unhealthy to many, it does tend to find an
economic equilibrium, as horse prices at auction or the ability to win purses,
all juxtaposed against the costs of involvement, forces each participant to
decide whether he or she weathers the storm, or just gives up.
Broadening federal rule beyond
the Interstate Horseracing Act launches all kinds of new and important
questions. Before anyone screams too loudly for federal intervention, I
think it appropriate that we collectively think about what a true federal
involvement in racing could mean. No one should think it will be limited
to creating uniform medication rules. Might not an "involved" federal
government become a party (by its own choice or by some disadvantaged
participant's request) to whom many would turn to have oversight on other
matters? They could "help" with issues such as regulating "splits"
between track operator, ADW platform, horseman, and regulator; jockey and
trainer education standards; living quarter specifications for grooms and their
families; greater involvement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement; federal
determinations as to safe racing surface standards; standardized contributions
for Thoroughbred aftercare; and many other elements of racing that can be
addressed on a federal basis. Maybe federal involvement will provide
"favor" not on the basis of the wagered dollar, but instead based upon the per
capita and total taxes paid in a state or its number of Congressmen? I
would imagine my friends in Arkansas wouldn't like my home state of Washington
having federal subsidies disproportionate to our relative handle. And for
sure, a transparent federal registry for horse blood and naming would make more
democratic sense than the secretive cloister of The Jockey Club, right?
Be careful what you wish for,
Jockey Club. You might get it.
Instead, I would suggest that if
The Jockey Club really wants to lead, it instead endeavor as an "agent of
change" to work with the many disparate groups within the sport to develop
agreed-upon scoping of the issues to be addressed, and an agreed-upon timeline
to accomplish agreements. My guess--and it is only that--would be that
most would conclude that the currently evolved and bargained system of wagered
dollar splits, and horse valuation at auction, and localized governance over
localized issues, while generally painful in all directions, reflects the
impacts of capitalism, and is about as good as it is going to get. Solve
the medication issues, not by absolutism and dogma, but by a genuine concern
for the equine athlete and the humans that come into contact with them, and
probably 99% of what can be fairly accomplished will be accomplished. Oh,
and by the way, if anyone truly believes that medication is the bane of the
future existence of racing, they are incompetent thinkers.
As Mr. Violette states, quite
clearly, racing has no commissioner. As he points out, there is no one to
directly tell The Jockey Club " to shut up."
I am not that commissioner, but
I will say it--shut up. You certainly do not speak
for me, and I do not believe that you speak for racing across America. (Remember The Pledge?).
