#Soundbites - Would creating a uniform standard for drug testing horses be good or bad?

By Bill Heller

The Horse Racing Integrity Act currently before the U.S. Congress would create a uniform standard for drug testing horses that would be overseen by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. Would that be good or bad?

****************************************

Ralph Nicks

It would probably be good. It would level the playing field. We need standard medication rules.

****************************************

Rick Schosberg

The jury’s out. I think uniform medication rules are a good thing. Whether it’s the government’s job to do, I’m not sold on that. A lot of people have been working very hard in the industry to get all the jurisdictions on the same page without government intervention. But absolutely it’s important that it gets done. 

**************************************

Eoin Harty

I think it would be good. Anything that’s going to enhance the public perception of our industry would be good. I believe this is a step in the right direction. I think it’s very important to enhance confidence in our industry. I think it’s at an all-time low. Anything that would improve that is a good thing.

**************************************

Norm Casse

I’m all for uniform rules, but I’m not in favor of the government being involved. It doesn’t seem like it ever works. I think we’re an industry that should be able to regulate ourselves rather than have someone else do it.

**************************************

Tom Proctor

When is the government getting involved ever a good thing?

***************************************

Ian Wilkes

Bad. I don’t think we need Congress getting involved in our sport. I think our testing is very sophisticated now anyway. I think it’s quite good. Yes, we need uniform rules, but we don’t need Congress involved.

***************************************

Jim Bond

It would be bad, though the way it is now is chaos. It’s sad. Ninety-nine percent of the people in our business are good people. You can have all the rules in the world, but they don’t punish the people that have overstepped boundaries hard enough. Not 60 days or 90 days. Make it real. Put some teeth into it. But getting the government involved would not be good. It never seems to work.

***************************************

Tim Hills 

If it’s properly instituted, I think it would be good; but horsemen must be included on how it would be set up and how it would be implemented. The horsemen have to have a seat at the table. They would have to be included in setting guidelines. We must be included in how it’s written up. 

***************************************

Chris Englehart

I guess it all depends on what the rules were. You’re talking about uniform rules. That would be fine, unless the rules included banning Lasix. I wouldn’t be in support of that. Where would we race our bleeders? I think it would be a good thing to have uniform testing. In a lot of ways, it would be great.

TO READ MORE —

BUY THIS ISSUE IN PRINT OR DOWNLOAD -

ISSUE 54 (PRINT)

$6.95

ISSUE 54 (DIGITAL)

$3.99

WHY NOT SUBSCRIBE?

DON'T MISS OUT AND SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE NEXT FOUR ISSUES!

Four issue subscription - PRINT & ONLINE -ONLY $24.95

#Soundbites - Should rules be added to limit or eliminate a jockey’s use of the whip?

#Soundbites

Compiled by Bill Heller

Robbie Davis

Yes. When a horse is beat, he shouldn’t be beaten up. Horses are competitive for the most part. Once they’re tired, you’re not going to get any more out of them. Or if he’s winning by several lengths, he shouldn’t be getting hit. It doesn’t take long to look right, look left and see how far ahead you are. I’ve seen the whip do more trouble than not. You’re not supposed to steer with the whip. That’s what the reins are for. In Canada, they limit the number of hits from the quarter-pole home and you can’t go above your head to whip.

Carla Gaines

It’s interesting. At this stage, the whip is so soft. Here in California, our sticks are as soft as can be. We used to use a stick which was far more severe for decades. It left welts. I rode horses all my life. I think the stick is necessary. You’re sitting on top of an explosive, thousand-pound animal. The stick will help control the horse. A lot of people advocate no stick. I understand that public concern is we’re hitting the horse, but it’s used to control the horse. People who work with other animals know you have to have some sense of control, not abuse. You have to keep them going in a straight line, or they could endanger somebody’s life.

John Velazquez (Hall of Fame Jockey)

We have rules already, but there are different rules. Would uniform rules be nice? Yes. But we talk about it, and nothing happens. It would be nice to see it happen before I retire. About eliminating the whip, absolutely not. It’s a tool we need. We need something to get the horse’s attention. We need it to get horses to go straight. Also, horses need to be encouraged. I’m not concerned about the perception because we use new whips that are much softer, much different now than the ones we used to use. 

Jeremiah Englehart

I can see a limited use of the whip to a certain degree. I like what Ramon’s (Dominguez) whip has done. I think from before, the old whips, you would get more whelps. With Ramon’s whip, it will be enough to get a horse’s attention. There are times when the whip has a good use. With a green horse, you’re trying to keep everyone on the racetrack safe. They’re not going to run in a straight line all the time. The use of the whip is necessary. I don’t think eliminating the whip is the answer. There should be panel looking at it with riders involved.

TO READ MORE —

BUY THIS ISSUE IN PRINT OR DOWNLOAD -

Summer 2019, issue 53 (PRINT)

$6.95

Summer 2019, issue 53 (DOWNLOAD)

$3.99

WHY NOT SUBSCRIBE?

DON'T MISS OUT AND SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE NEXT FOUR ISSUES!

Print & Online Subscription

From $24.95

#Soundbites - Is there too much racing?

By Bill Heller

Once upon a time, racing in most locations had an off-season. That created anticipation for its return. In the Northeast, when racing only lasted from March through November, you actually missed it in the off months, and you got really pumped up for its return. Those days are long gone.

Racing these days is year-round, and some tracks offer massive cards on Saturdays, as many as 14 races a day instead of eight or nine.

So we asked trainers: Is there too much racing?  

*********************************************

Bob Hess Jr.

I don’t think there’s too much racing. But I think nowadays, eight, nine races a day with huge fields is ideal, not 12. I think the average person doesn’t want to be stuck there for more than three hours. In terms of promoting it with young people, eight would be ideal. Again, they don’t want to be stuck there. They get bored.

***************************************

Al Stall

I would say, no, there’s not too much racing. The foal crop is going down, so maybe that will inspire us. There are less opportunities. It could change if we wanted to do it. Cards at Gulfstream Park wear you out with 12 or 13 races. But you don’t have to stay the whole card. Young people now, there’s so much more to do. I would love to be able to educate them about our game.

****************************************

Bill Mott

I think the boutique meets seem to do the best. Longer meets—they never seem to end. People get bored. I think you wear people out with 14 races a day. Eight or nine is enough. I understand what they’re thinking, These guys aren’t stupid. And they look at the numbers. Most places need five days a week. Different people who work around the track need it. You can’t have a full-time employee and race two days a week. It makes no sense. But Instead of running 11, 12 or 14 races, you should run eight or nine. There’s going to be hard-core gamblers who would sit there for 12 hours, but I think they wear other gamblers out. I think they’re wearing people out.

*****************************************

Graham Motion

I think there is too much racing. Look, every race office in the country is looking for horses. I believe that less racing would bring a better product for the bettors. I think less racing, at the end of the day… it’s just common sense to me. People want to see good racing and good fields. Twelve races a day—it’s way too much for everybody, bettors, horsemen and their employees. It’s very stressful for everybody. When your boys are at the track at 4:30 in the morning and still there at 6:30 or 7 or 8 (pm), I think it wears on everybody. Probably the gamblers as well. Jockeys begin at 5:30 in the morning, and they’re there until 7 or 8 (pm). How could a jockey be at his absolute best the entire day? They’ve got to be sharp, thinking quickly and making decisions. How can you keep doing that at 7 o’clock in the evening if you’ve been there all day?

TO READ MORE —

BUY THIS ISSUE IN PRINT OR DOWNLOAD -

Triple Crown 2019, issue 52 (PRINT)

$6.95

Triple Crown 2019, issue 52 (DOWNLOAD)

$3.99

WHY NOT SUBSCRIBE?

DON'T MISS OUT AND SUBSCRIBE TO RECEIVE THE NEXT FOUR ISSUES!

Print & Online Subscription

From $24.95