Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

Deltalady — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 22:40:04 GMT

There have been serious efforts at reform, including the uniform rules, but guess who steps in and calls a halt, it's the trainers. It has been reported that the reason trainers have this power is because of the unfortunate language of the 1978 Horseracing Act, in which the word "horsemen" was used to give veto power to any rules changes to the "horsemen", which trainers have insisted just means them and no one else. I would love for someone to go back and chronicle the progression of this school of thought and how this interpretation was allowed to stand. Back then, I'm pretty sure the word "horsemen" encompassed all industry stakeholders -- the only possible reason to put such language in the Act in the first place. It is hardly reasonable that back then the trainers held sway over all the other stakeholders. The Owners, Breeders, and even a few trainers have supported getting rid of raceday meds, and the Breeders Cup was all set to implement their plan when the trainers groups threatened to withhold simulcast rights from the event. Some say the Breeders' Cup caved, but when someone threatens to kill your business, do you have a real choice? What needs to happen is to simply change that one word in the 1978 Act to include all industry stakeholders. The Breeders Cup, the Graded Stakes Committee, and others would be ready to pick up the baton and finish what they started. I bet the "stakeholders" would all be ready to join with the WADA to further tighten testing and strengthening the rules, not to mention getting rid of the legal drugs on raceday.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

Kipster — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 20:20:30 GMT

I say suspend them all: Owners, Trainers, Assistant Trainers, Jockey's and Jockey's agents, stewards, vets any and all involved including track owners. They all have a vested interest and if it is going to taint the industry, it needs to be policed and cleared of all accusatory action. My dad always said,' if it ain't on the up and up you shouldn't wager' and he knew bull Hancock.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

Your Only Friend — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 17:12:10 GMT

Those states that do not conform....conforming states should not let horses from those states run on their tracks.....when non conforming states/owners/trainers cannot run for BIG RACES/BIG PURSES....hopefully states will change their minds.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

JasonR — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:25:31 GMT

Police itself? Talk about ignoring a historical red flag. Anytime that phrase is used, it should cause immediate intervention.

Wth does an owner know about? Clearly the trainers are responsible for the horses.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

lysa slater — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 13:24:13 GMT

Very well stated. This issue is very much in the forefront of late and rightly so. It is an embarrassment to the great sport of horse racing that the United States is unable to do what other countries have done. I imagine it is most likely true that the implementation of an organization like the USADA will cause lots of dissention and complaining but it's not as if there has been no warning. BTW, I live in Florida and shame on my state!

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

Sunny2 — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:16:33 GMT

"Losing your livelihood for a year on a first offense should certainly get a lot of trainers’ attention." This punishment may work for the smaller trainer but unfortunately, the big name trainers get around this "punishment". They are already spread out and offsite anyway with assistant trainers. They just have their assistant trainers continue on with their string of horses, entering under the name of the assistant if needed. It does NOT penalize the trainer's livelihood which is why they continue to repeat. Owners are at the trainer's mercy. They do not know what the trainers are giving their animals. Penalizing the owners for something that the trainer's chose to do may cause owners to move their animals as Chip indicated, but the real culprit is still the trainer who essentially walks away and sucks in the next "victim" owner and horse continuing to repeat with positive tests. It is a deliberate gamble that these trainers continue to make because they know that they can effectively get around the so called "punishments" if caught.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

DarStar — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:03:53 GMT

Chip Pitfield, is right on! Maybe he would make a great great oversight chairman!

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

Warlaine — Wed, 02 Apr 2014 01:42:04 GMT

Thank you Chip Pitfield. If racing would look at this as a fresh start it might yet have a future but sweeping uniform reforms must take place not in a few states but all.There is the saying it must get worse before it gets better, well we're there! Now let's get it done starting at the very top. Call it trickle down ethics.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

Needler in Virginia — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 19:42:20 GMT

Too right the clock is ticking, and it really is about time. But how's this for an idea? For those states which don't want to regulate what the rest of the planet seems to think needs regulating, how about they lose parimutuel privileges? Racing is, after all, an interstate business, which gives several fairly powerful agencies oversight. Just cut 'em off. Then they can explain to the voters why they have to cross state lines to watch and wager......... just a thought.

But well said, Eric. The gorilla in the room is getting larger, and because the various parts of racing can't seem to agree on anything other than that racing still involves horses, the end result is obvious and FAR too long in coming.

Cheers and safe trips.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

turfnsport — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 19:32:35 GMT

Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Colorado would get on board quick if all horseplayers refused to wager on races from their states.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

kelso2 — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 17:03:07 GMT

You are obviously not an owner. I think this proposal sounds fair. If my trainer gets one bad test, that's enough for me to change trainers.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

Jbumi — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:40:22 GMT

Well said, Chip, I couldn't agree more.

re: Tick Tick Tick - by Eric Mitchell

Chip Pitfield — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 16:10:17 GMT

Suspending an owner's horse isn't the same as suspending an owner. If you really want to fix the industry, start suspending owners. When a guy has 10 horses in training and he can't run any of them after a positive test, he'll get pretty choosy about his choice of trainer. I'd respectfully suggest that the industry is trying to fix a problem by fiddling around the edges. This is partially because of the multi-jurisdictional nature of the industry, but it's also because (I fear) the industry knows that some of its most successful trainers and owners wouldn't last a month.