Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

joe c. — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:21:19 GMT

I went to the Belmont many years in a row, flying some distance, hotel fees, but all worth the excitement...Alysheba & Easy Goer, Silver Charm & Real Quiet, Funny Cide & Smarty. The last time was 08 and Big Brown, a beautiful horse but boy! The attitude in the stands among fans of all ages. The air was out of the balloon before the race. I felt badly for the horse even before the pathetic, shocking finish. The aging fan base is sick of drugs, and probably tied to that fewer and fewer starts. Add to that owners and trainers who are not sportspersons, and track and racing officials who are not horsemen (few women in those ranks).Sports pages and the general media don't locate stars standing in the stall six weeks to three months at a time. Once great races like the Suburban run allowance fields at best. And why are the stands empty? I'll watch the tc races, but not with the fervor or excitement I felt in the 70's, though the last decade.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

Pedigree Ann — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:25:24 GMT

Those of us who have been around a while have seen similar fields for the Derby; it isn't new. Want to know why Arazi was the odds-on favorite for the 1992 Derby? Not just because of his BC Juvie win at CD; there didn't seem to be much for him to beat. Every prep seemed to have a different winner; nobody dominated at any of the prep venues - Florida, Louisiana, Oaklawn, California, New York. Those of us who followed racing closely thought Arazi's preparation was insufficient, but it was hard to make a good case for anybody else. I was rooting for Shelley Riley's horse Casual Lies so she could be the first woman trainer to win a Derby. [So close!]

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

anniedixie65 — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:24:09 GMT

furlongs,

I just thought I would let you know that I am that 18 year old kid who just loves the sport for everything about it. I am going to the Kentucky Derby for the first time this year and I am sick of people being so down about the whole. I don't care, it's one of the biggest races of the year! I was lucky enough to see the great Zenyatta race in the Apple Blossom last year standing directly across from the finish line. All my friends at school I am sure get annoyed with me because I all I talk about is horse racing. I try and get as many people as I can to watch the sport, and everytime I bring up a big race I can get at least 6 people to watch that race on tv that day. I love the sport for the horses.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

needler in Virginia — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 03:39:32 GMT

KY VET and AngelaFromAbilene, sadly I DO know whereof I speak. I've spent hours and days and weeks and months and years at a bush track in the Texas Panhandle, so I DO know what I'm talking about.

No one has said drugs are a new thing. In fact, the use of all sorts of artificial performance enhancers has been around since Aristotle said to Socrates "my horse can beat your horse and I've got two drachmas to back that up, smarty pants!" Everything imaginable has been used to "light up a horse" and there are loads of people out there who know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

John C is spot on with his discussion of bleeding; Lasix (or Salix or whatever they call it this Thursday) masks an issue, but NOT ALL HORSES ARE BLEEDERS, and therefore should NOT require Lasix. Then there's butazolidine (sp?). Bute is a "mask" for all sorts of discomfort, and a horse requiring a cover up of discomfort should NOT be racing. Ask any athlete in ANY sport and you'll be told of the issues that arise from masking an injury. The truth is a "mask" covers pain and if a horse feels no pain in his bowed tendon or his hairline fractured cannon or his slab fractured knee, he will continue to run as normally as possible until he has injured himself significantly ...........sometimes tragically. If a horse requires bute or Lasix or any other damn thing that covers, or masks, or "lessens" a problem, that horse is a danger to himself, his jockey and every other living thing on the race track. Pain is a symptom and a warning bell; it should be addressed and managed for EVERYONE'S sake. It should never be covered up to get one more race out of the old plater, or to get that whacko two year old into the maiden special weight next weekend.

And while we're at it, Angela, what on earth could make you have a problem with testing and publicity? The only way to prove that racing is an honest sport is by testing horses and publicizing failures. Fer Pete's sake let the bettors know who's a crook. And you don't "give a tinkers damn about Dutrow"? Good for you, and have a happy life. If you don't care how he behaves then I wonder what IS important to you about racing. Clearly, it's not the safety of the horses or the jocks. Maybe you just like a nice day in the sun, and that's great. For racing to allow a Dutrow to continue unchallenged, unimpeded and unpunished makes losers of us all. But that's just my opinion............

This is what I care about: I believe that racing has a history that should not be cast aside, that racing can be honest, that these horses are born and bred to run and do it pretty well, thanks very much. I believe that racing has some truly difficult problems, that racing has to change the public's perception of it by setting and adhering to strict drug policies, that racing must grow with the times and embrace the 21st century. That does NOT mean learning how to use a computer so you can bet online....it means being aware that the public perception and the private realities need to be the same. There is simply so much information out there and it moves so fast that your left-handed, knock-kneed 16th cousin seven times removed..... you know the one I mean: the hermit on Mount Everest....... will know about a breakdown at Turfway before the ambulance has left the track. I also believe that racing must recognize that negative public perception can do it great harm, and that blowing smoke isn't the best idea these days.

So, enough. I won't change your mind, but I can try to clarify several points I think you may have missed. If not, then I apologize for trying, I do NOT apologize for thinking that what you wrote in your 7:43 AM post may be EXACTLY what's wrong with racing today.

Cheers and safe trips to almost everyone.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

Convene — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 02:05:44 GMT

Re Mr. Dutrow - perhaps if owners realized that their horses might be barred from running if their trainers' licences were suspended, owners might be reluctant to place their horses with trainers who have racked up an impressive string of violations! I doubt if anyone could argue that he had no idea this might happen to Rick Dutrow. I mean 74 violations? And it was a surprise that eventually the axe fell? I know even the most upstanding trainer might pop the odd contamination suspension - but not THAT many times! I'm sorry the man might have to find some other line of work but he knew the rules as well as anyone and he sloughed them off as unimportant. If racing is to save what's left of its integrity, we can't keep people with that kind of mentality. The fans, the owners and the horses deserve better.

As for the Derby - get 20 card, write a name on each one and then pick any card! I don't remember a year in which so many horses beat each other with this much regularity. This Derby could belong to just about anyone and I truly won't be surprised whoever wins it. I think Uncle Mo might well be the best but hey - who knows? This year it's anyone's game!

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

So Amused — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:53:12 GMT

I agree with Angela, at least the first few lines about the drugs. We have owned show horses for decades and finding the next undetectable drug was a favorite past time for trainers on the circuit. Is that okay or good? No, of course not but owners have a lot invested in these animals and want results. Most owners are not horse people and if the trainer says it is okay and the animal can perform then that is the bottom line. Sorry but after 40 years of showing or standing on the rail I am certain that is the reality the majority of the time in all horse sports.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

AngelaFromAbilene — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:43:42 GMT

I think it's hilarious that people think drugs have just recently been introduced to racing. You have no idea the things that have been done and the cocktails and concoctions used on horses, just to get them to the gate, through the ages. What has changed is testing, publicity and animal rights nazis. KY vet is right. What's next...ice? I too don't give a tinkers damn about Dutrow but please, know that of which you speak.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

Early Speed — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:27:13 GMT

Due to the fact that the "march" to the Derby itself is loaded with attrition from past years when so often strong candidates were sidelined or sidelined at the last minute from injuries, trainers today take no chances. They would much rather enter the Derby with an underconditioned colt than one that cannot run at all because of even the normal amount of wear on the colts' young bones. What does this say about breeding practices? We want the fastest maturing horse to do with Uncle Mo did in his two-year old career and still expect the horse to be as good a three-year old as they were when they first came on the track and won right away with fast times. To get that early maturing horse, we are breeding tanks on toothpicks.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

John C. — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:55:02 GMT

KY Vet, clearly you do not understand the science of Evolutionary Theory via artificial selection. You state that horses are prehistoric creatures - not anymore!

About two hundred years ago, the thoroughbred was created via "selective breeding" (something that never occurs in nature, as in "natural selection"),and has ever since been under the extreme selection pressure of human breeders. In other words, almost no thoroughbred has mated randomly or naturally for 200 years! Breeders select for specific traits and do not permit horses that do not meet those criteria to breed i.e. these horses are gelded or just not allowed to hook up with the mares.

Evolution via this type of artificial selection can occur very quickly, on the order of 50 years or fewer! Just look at what artificial selection has done to certain breeds of dog: golden retrievers are notorious for hip arthritis, lung cancer (which quickly took my own Golden), and myriad allergies. The golden retriever breeders have, within 10 or 20 years also produced goldens that have mostly shorter hind legs (they look terrible and freakish, by the way).

So, when mistakenly looked at in terms of evolution via natural selection, the horse cannot change in the evolutionary nanosecond of 200 years. But, when viewed in the proper and realistic context of artificial selection i.e. the only way that 99.999% of all thoroughbreds come into existence, certain traits are amplified in the gene pool very quickly.

For example, it is highly probable that most studs and mares that are bred today are non-Lasix bleeders. How did this come about so quickly?

LASIX.

Lasix has masked the bleeders and the other ailments that they are treated for (the diuretic more readily rids their blood of other drugs, illicit or otherwise) so they seem perfectly fine to breed after their 8 to 10 race "careers".

Breeders/blind-greeders have destroyed the American thoroughbred, and done so in a way and with the blinding speed that nature never could have.

They must keep the drugs flowing to cover up their distastrous mistakes.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

KY VET — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:54:11 GMT

Dutrow is a crook! CHEATER! Come on...say it! jump on the bandwagon!! Those horses should'nt be able to run! Why and what exactly the reason you people say this? because eveyone else is huh? Because you love horseracing, and he is exactly whats wrong with the game! RIGHT? well...they let the horses run because they waited til after the owners shipped the horses there....the court made correct decision....2nd..Dutrow is a crook why? He gave his horses some kinda stimulant? Something to make them run better? For what reason? To cash a bet? To win a small purse?..you must think this! why else call him a crook? This guy is the scapegoat for the sport...yes he is responsible for his horses. yes he has made mistakes......like hundreds of other trainers have....bute is to horses what asprin or tylenol is.....its not that big of deal...do you take asprin? the other was painkiller.....there are many painkillers...he's the only trainer that gave a horse a painkiller? most positive tests are mistakes....happens every day....but you people are presenting him to be this crook who is trying to cheat to cash a bet or win a small purse...people are against lasix, but if it was outlawed you just dont give horse water for a day...if not lasix,then that. if not this pain killer than this other one...how about outlawing the use of ice! to reduce swelling? or vitamins? I don't care either way about dutrow. maybe he is just stupid or something...but a crook? be smarter people.....we aren't talking elephant juice here!

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

KY VET — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 00:28:28 GMT

The reason horseracing is the best,is you don't bet against the house. It's because i get to get against you people! I make a great living doing so..Common Sense, is probably the main reason..you people say things like"the breed has weakened drasticly!" or "horses don't run enough,thats why they get hurt" or "dutrow is a crook!" and all this other stuff...First of all, horses are prehistoric..if you knew anything about science, you would know it takes wayyyyyyy longer to weaken the breed....you all believe this because you heard people who don't know talk....2nd...horses don't race enough...understand, that racing hurts horses...they literally strain tendons, soft tissues, and break bones when they run.....yes break bones.....sore shin is broken bone...everytime they run, thousands of microfractures occur. Now , if a horse runs slow, he can run every day...horses that are slow dont put as much stress on the bone etc...the horses that are the fastest, are the ones that don't run as often....get it? common sense......about dutrow? next post

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

John C. — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:53:20 GMT

Who is making these quixotic comments about this year's crop? Mr. Rogers?

This year and last year's crops were two of the worst in memory! Generally, these horses are sent to the floor of their stalls for a week after each race, and can barely be resuscitated to eke out a workout every two to four weeks.

Trainers operate under the assumption that racing is the highest form of abuse to a "good" quality horse, and do everything in their power to keep these horses off of the racetrack, causing the self-fulfilling prophecy that the horses cannot take the rigors of racing. Even the great Rachel Alexandra lost her peak fitness due to atrophy (though she never lost heart).

We have seen the end of great horses or, at the very least, horses who will show their great potential. This has been going on for a decade or more- get lucky in a few graded stakes on heavy Lasix, cover up any reports of injury (if the horse dares continue to run), and then rush into the breeding shed to produce more infirm flashes in the pan.

It's too bad that Uncle Mo is in Pletcher's radically conservative hands; he could have been one of the good ones.

Wait till you see this year's Triple Crown race-times: The Derby in 2:04, Preakness in 1:56 (will be won by a harness racing horse), and the Belmont in 2:30 (still beating Drosselmeyer!). People keep talking about the end of racing. It DID end! We are just going through rigor mortis.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

James Jarrell — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:21:22 GMT

I offer two items to change the direction horse racing is headed in. #1 Close half the travks in the country, then we can have full fields every place. 2nd Ban all evidence of all drugs in the blood stream on race day. No one can handicap races with the conditions we run under today. Dont blame Dutrow for what he does, He is only doing what the law alowes.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

David — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:34:57 GMT

Fatalist or Pollyanna? For me it cannot be understated – this year’s Derby situation is a microcosm of the past 15 years. A race that was once properly heralded as the genesis of iconic runners that attracted most of us to game is fast-becoming a shadow of itself. Worse, no one seems to care. We listen to earthwhile trainers speak of required methodology that fits a selfish agenda, not sound judgment. Take a close look at the past 15 Derby winners’ post-Derby records. It’s pretty evident the Derby is the only objective and, as such, has served to relegate the sports greatest asset. Negative? Just realistic I fear.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

deb — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:16:47 GMT

The fact that people are talking about the problems in racing, tells me that it is being worked on but change takes a lot of time, look at our government and racing is a lot like it. Change will is coming, everyday. People want it. Great steps have been made and more will come.....

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

Mahuaba — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:11:49 GMT

I hate to say it, but I have also been thinking I should swear off the horse racing. I have been a fanatic about it all my life---I have never seen anything more beautiful, courageous and inspiring as the Thoroughbred. However, during my 59 years, more than once, since Pine Island died, I have thought I was going to have to get away from it. And the fact of the doping (which I believe has contributed a great deal to the decline of our racehorses) and that horses rarely run anymore is contributing to my dismay. So are trainers like R. Dutrow. If the Thoroughbred world doesn't police itself, I think the Gov't would step (perish the thought!), or it will die. I believe it's the latter. And dying might be better than a lot of Gov't regs. And bureaucrats. It's breaking my heart!

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

Bryan — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:51:57 GMT

I agree that a lot of times the press is to blame for being hypocritical. They decry the failing of racing yet never write any good articles about it. I also agree we need to have a younger fan base, but I also beleive some of this has to come from the fans themselves. When Zenyatta ran all the people at the track said she had made them fans of racing. Well...if this holds true, then all those people SHOULD BE OUT AT THE TRACK ON THE BIG DAYS!!! They said the same thing about Smarty Jones and eventually no one held their interest in racing anymore. I want to see these 30 thousand people that showed up at Santa Anita to see Zenyatta run to be there again this year when those races are run. If you are professing to be made a fan of the sport...support it by going to the track. Yes I wish that more big name horses would run more often, and the trainers and owners are to blame there, but there is not going to be a superstar running at the track every weekend. Doesn't mean you still can't go out and support the sport by being there.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

moodygirl — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:50:27 GMT

Nancy P, I'm sorry you are feeling so bad about racing & the world in general. I have those days. It would be a dream come true for me to attend the Belmont or any major race. There are many things that can be focused on in a negative way: drugs, trainers, using quarter horse methods too much with thoroughbreds, etc. The breed is still good! Look how well American bred horses do overseas.

But there is always griping about the current crop of 3 yr olds. I was shocked that all race day drugs WILL BE ELIMINATED within 5 years. What a great decision for the sport & the overall health of the horses!

I look forward to seeing Master Of The Hounds come to the Derby. He is American bred and Aidan O'Brian trains his horses for more stamina (more preps, longer races & the help of science re: heat rates, oxygen, etc.) AND NO DRUGS. It is the way of the future but everyone has not caught on here. Then there is Frankel, a supremely bred, unbeaten 3 yr old in Europe who if he continues as he is will be at the BC.

Look how well the fillies have done the last few years! That is an improvement and it continues this year.

Changes in track surfaces was an attempt to improve breakdowns & injuries, even though the results have been argued; it is still an attempt to move forward in the industry for the welfare of the horses.

I don't care if Pegasus in Maryland for the Preakness is totally tasteless. Bring the young any way they want to come, they are coming just not in the traditional way as in the past.

Look at the gripers who complained about those "new Zenyatta fans" . Fans come in different ways & all don't look alike. But they are coming. I have heard reliable reports that there are young people at the tracks. Maybe not all of them, all of the time but it is improving.

If it is one thing I can say about the TB fans & "experts" is that they like to complain, argue and seldom agree on anything! You can paint a totally negative picture but you can say there are really some improvements going on also.

I follow the BloodHorse too but it is not my only source of information about the TB racing world. Look around on the internet. There are good, new things happening. Just don't listen to the same old track sour people!

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

Anna B. — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:51:59 GMT

Every year I see people say, "This crop is so mediocre!" All *I* see is that there are several 3 yr olds that have thrown in one bad race, and suddenly they're all mediocre? The Factor, Dialed In, Uncle Mo, Stay Thirsty, and the list goes on.

Is it just me, or are we looking WAY too hard for perfection? As a fan, I'm excited every weekend by the racing I watch. Races like the Arkansas Derby didn't turn out the way I imagined, but I was thrilled to see Archarcharch standout and to see Nehro run a big one. Are either of them perfect? No, but they're talented and exciting. I'm excited about this year's Triple Crown trail BECAUSE it seems so up-in-the-air!

Please, let's just enjoy these colts as much as possible. And how about all of these fillies! I've been a fan for 35 years and am going to my FIRST Derby this year. Not everyone out there is a pessimist!

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

mitch — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:44:02 GMT

I am pretty sure it's only been five months since a super horse, a mare, captured the hearts and minds of the general public. I think her name was Zenyatta. People ought to quit projecting their general malaise onto racing. True, no standouts have emerged this year yet. I wonder if the Andy Beyer never existed, if these horses weren't tied to some mystery figure that disappoints more often than not, has anything to do with the mood. It's only a 91. Wah. Grow up, dudes.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

Pedigree Ann — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:28:43 GMT

Back when I was a newby (1970) Thoroughbreds were for racing. That was where they could earn the most. A stud career was a nice bonus, but it was what a horse did after he had finished racing. And he didn't finish until he was an older horse (at least 5, often 6 or 7) unless injury intervened.

Today is entirely different. The yearling and other markets are the place to make money. Then if your high-priced yearling wins a couple of over-graded races (usually sprints or miles) you can retire him to rake in even better money as a stallion. I pointed out to my friends last year a stallion ad where the high points for the animal in question were his sales price, his siblings' sales prices and his sires' sales averages. Barely a word about actual racing ability.

I also have a few words to say about the influence of the 'sheets' guys, which has been devastating to our stakes programs in the US. Using mathematical formulae full of unproven assumptions, they have convinced trainers to space races for top horses months apart, in the face of decades of practical experience and the science of exercise physiology.

Some of our terminology should change, too. A jockey's bat is not a whip; it doesn't have long, thin lashes that define a whip and is far kinder to the horse. Then why do we keep calling it a whip? The word has such negative connotations to the public at large. I rode horses for decades and know that a properly delivered whack (with a bat) on the rear end can achieve the communication required without injuring the very tough hide and thick muscles that reside there. But the average person in the street doesn't know that. They picture slaves being whipped, open wounds, blood, all that negative baggage from one word.

I could ad more, but haven't time.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

Jon — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 13:13:39 GMT

We on this forum are aware of all of the horses and which ones to watch closely. The general public is not. Not even remotely. They will not have even heard of most, if any at all, of the horses come Derby day. Period. NBC, which will be televising the Triple Crown races, has not shown even one prep race. Instead, that network scours the world for some golf game to televise instead; week in and week out. When the Kentucky Derby rolls around and the (low) ratings come in, NBC will be wondering why they're down. The Washington Post has no coverage of horse racing anymore and doesn't even bother naming winners of major races, even in its Miscellaneous Section of the sports pages. It's frustrating. One would have thought that based on Uncle Mo's two-year-old season, he would have been featured; the Wood Memorial would have been on TV as it always used to be. And the Florida Derby. And the Arkansas Derby. And the Santa Anita Derby. And the Blue Grass Stakes. But nada. No coverage of any of those races. None whatsoever. It's just sad.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

anne at ETC — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:45:56 GMT

anita b - I think the answer is in the "published" part - not all works are published.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

IOWay — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:47:20 GMT

Taking the family to the racetrack is still one of the best "entertainment bargains" around. Promoting a day at the races as a family event like Cantebury Park in Minnesota does with their Sunday afternoon events will bring a new young generation of racing fans to the track. Almost every owner got involved in the sport because of being introduced to it as a young person, usually through interaction with a parent or grandparent at the track. Compared to the prices of tickets, concessions, etc. at major league baseball, NFL or college football or NBA or men's college basketball, horse racing is by far the most affordable sporting event for a family to attend. At Oaklawn Park you often see three or even four generations of a family attending the races together. To say that races moves too slowly for today's generation who demand "instant gratifacation" is an overstatment. Compare it to watching a major league baseball game which to me is one of the slowest moving sports there is and it compares favorably. If you attend a televised NFL or college football game the TV timeouts greatly slow the "on field action" but they are part of what makes those sports economically feasible. I agree that horse racing needs heros such as Zenyata, Smarty Jones, Funny Cide, etc. But also promoting interaction between race fans and jockeys and trainers on the apron would help tremendously, if promoted on race days, so that the fans will feel a personal connection to jockeys or trainers. Also promoting sponsorship of low level races by local businesses so that their employees get to the track and can get their picture taken "in the winner's circle" is a winning strategy. I think race tracks are doing an atrocious job of marketing the sport but there is no reason for the sport to be dying. We need new blood in the marketing departments to promote the sport in a manner that will appeal to younger fans. Use of a little imagination would help tremendously.

re: Derby Dizzy - by Evan Hammonds

needler in Virginia — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 02:54:47 GMT

catts, I agree 100%. Who REALLY believe the owners did NOT know about Dutrow's MANY & MULTIPLE violations? Who's kidding who? Does anyone really believe that an owner is going to pay a small fortune to a trainer without knowing that trainer's credentials? NAH, they knew and chose to look the other way as long as their horses were winning, but when Dutrow is finally brought before the bar, the KHRC is being unfair? Nope, the owners should have been denied permission to run their horses. And who can forget that classic pre-Preakness moment of truth from Dutrow when he said "sure, ALL my horses get steroids once a month", then we find out he did NOT give Big Brown his June dose and we got that Belmont from hell. ENOUGH, already. I used to laugh when my grandmother said "where there's smoke, there's fire"; now I'm almost blinded by the smoke from the the forest fire surrounding Dutrow and his methods, and I can see EXACTLY what that classic old broad meant! Now I get to be the Old Broad and I'm REALLY, REALLY angry. Take all of racing's problems and put 'em in a soup pot; this sort of behavior makes HUGE headlines and gives racing a black eye the size of Montana. Sadly, I think Dutrow is just the tip of the iceberg.....that makes me the most pessimistic of pessimists, doesn't it?

I've been sorting and sifting and cleaning out our house and have found (and re-read) ancient copies of BloodHorse containing articles on........... wait for it....... whether or not racing on meds is acceptable. Those were written years ago and the SAME fight rages on. How about this? NO RACE DAY MEDS, EVEN IN TRACE AMOUNTS. I know, everyone is gonna jump on this and say "that's fine, BUT........." Fair enough; but if a horse needs ANY race day meds, it should not be running. PERIOD. If a horse is a bleeder, it should not be running. And if you don't want a bleeder don't breed one bleeder to another. The rest of the planet manages to run drug free, what's wrong with American horses? NOTHING! THEY ARE ALL THE SAME BREED AND THE GENE POOL HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR AGES. If you use drugs too casually, you can very well exacerbate a problem, thus creating the need for more drugs. If a horse is ouchy, it should go home to the farm and rest up. It has no business at the track. I've said this before and I'm gonna repeat myself one more time before I pack it in tonight: if racing doesn't get its' act together about drugs (specifically, but there are other issues that need addressing), someone else WILL step in, and I guarantee racing will not be happy with the results. But that's just the pessimist talking, you understand.........bet you can't tell how I feel about all this, can you?

You ALL should be very proud of me: I didn't curse even once!!!

Cheers and safe trips to almost everyone.