HISA | Horse Racing Free Tips

Irwin: What Satisfaction Is There For Owners Who Employ Cheating Trainers?

In this Olympic year, when athletes and officials braved the scourge of COVID against difficult odds to conduct the Summer Games in Japan, I think a lot about what drives these individuals to achieve excellence and from where their satisfaction is derived.

I love and have loved the Olympics since childhood, reveling in the stories of such greats as Jesse Owens, Bob Mathias and Jim Thorpe. Their drive, their talent and their stories live within me and have done so since I was a little kid.

While Track and Field is my favorite sport, horse racing is a close second. I participated in T&F in high school and college, as did my father and brother. The gratification and excitement I felt from competing in athletics, however, pales in comparison to the thrills and satisfaction I have experienced in horse racing.

Watching a steed you are involved with roaring down the stretch on the lead generates a high that beats the short pants off of Athletics.

Satisfaction, however, is more difficult to achieve in horse racing compared with almost any other sporting enterprise, because so many people are involved in racing a horse and the animal itself cannot communicate in the traditional sense with its human caretakers.

On the other hand, when a horse does win a race, the satisfaction is greater because it is so difficult to achieve, especially at the highest levels of the game.

As I have been involved in racing, one way or another, for more than half a century and now am in my seventh decade, I have been struck by a change among owners that is not only profoundly disturbing but possibly a sign that the game may not survive as we have known it.

What I have noticed is not peculiar to horse racing, but to many other aspects of modern society as well, particularly it seems in Western Civilization.

Today we live in a society that cares less for rules and more for winning at all costs. We see this trend not only in sports, but in the financial and pharmaceutical communities where ethics have been stretched to the limits. And the crossover from members of these businesses into racing and their great impact on the track, in the sales ring and at the windows has been something only a blind person could have missed.

I question where the satisfaction comes from in winning races for these owners in this modern era. I question where the good vibes are derived.

I know exactly where it comes from for me. When I am involved in a winner, especially one that achieves a great victory as a result of developing a horse and following a game plan that was months in the making, the satisfaction comes from a job well done with a horse in which I believe.

When our homebred Animal Kingdom won the Kentucky Derby a decade ago, the satisfaction was even greater than that of a usual winner of the Run for the Roses, as his victory was not diminished by connections of the also-rans complaining about troubles in the race.

[Story Continues Below]

To achieve complete satisfaction in winning an important race is very, very difficult. I will never stop thanking my lucky stars it happened in the race we all want to win the most. For me it was a miracle, a blessing and a moment of sheer satisfaction.

In today's environment I wonder where the satisfaction comes from for those owners who have chosen to be involved with trainers that cheat. It seems obvious to me that certain owners gravitate to certain trainers because they share the same “win at all costs” attitude. They share the same disdain for the rules. And they look at themselves as “sharps” in a world of “chumps.”

In this regard, I am a true chump. A chump is a poor bastard that follows the rules, even knowing that if you take an edge your chances of success will increase dramatically.

Today's “enlightened” owner, as a now deceased ex-trainer referred to trainers who cheat using modern methods that include Performance Enhancing Drugs, either knows that the trainer he chooses is a cheater, strongly suspects he is a cheater or is an outright enabler of the cheating trainer.

The satisfaction for these owners comes from a) having pulled off a stroke against horses trained and owned by chumps, b) cashing bets based on information that their steeds are juiced to the gills, c) knowing that the improved form of their horses will translate to big prices at public auction or d) the cherry on top of the cake, a lucrative stallion syndication deal.

The normal, garden-variety satisfaction that Little League parents and coaches feel when their team wins or their kid safely runs out a bunt is not what motivates today's modern owner, who relies on trainers that cheat to win.

I fear that the modern dilemma will lead to the demise of the sport for a few reasons. First, owners that do not cheat are fed up with losing to owners that do and could leave the sport. Secondly, until HISA is up and running, I see absolutely no prospect of positive change, because there is no major racetrack or regulatory agency in any locale that is actively investigating cheating on their grounds.

Racetracks want the horses that cheaters train so they can fill their races. Regulators are like politicians in that their only motivation in life is to keep their jobs.

With no racing press to speak of, save a couple of online outfits, there are precious few journalists remaining to keep the cheaters' feet to the fire.

If my fellow chumps continue to be robbed by owners that employ, sponsor or enable cheating trainers, we chumps may just come to the sad conclusion that not enough satisfaction remains to be had in order to continue to underwrite the sport of horse racing in North America.

And I write this as an owner who has been winning most of the year at a 25 percent clip in major races around the globe. I am not complaining as a loser, I am complaining as a winner.

Barry Irwin is the founder and CEO of Team Valor International

The post Irwin: What Satisfaction Is There For Owners Who Employ Cheating Trainers? appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Campbell: The Horse Racing Industry Nexus

For those of you who like playing the futures, or simply enjoy speculating on odds, there is a website out there for you called Polymarket. They take compelling types of questions, (some less so, depending on your persuasion), and offer you the chance to “buy in” with either a “Yes” or “No.” It's all based on $1.00, and that is what you get for each share you buy, if you are correct.

An example: Will Britney Spears' Dad be out of her conservatorship before Oct. 1? If you don't agree, you could get shares for .63 apiece. If you do, then that will run you .37. A recent addition was, “Will the KHRC rule to disqualify Medina Spirit from the Kentucky Derby by Oct. 15?” Who knows about that one!

Cashing in on opinions continues apace. In this speculative vein, if we were to construct one of these “prop bets,” what do you think the odds are that the Horseracing Integrity & Safety Act, also known more popularly as “HISA,” will be ready during the Summer of 2022? I am hopeful of this prospect after listening to Charles Scheeler's upbeat appraisal on the current state of the federal legislation that was signed into law by the Trump Administration late last year.

On Aug. 15, The Jockey Club hosted virtually its annual Round Table Conference on Matters Pertaining to Racing. Its panel of participants included Scheeler, who was elected chairman of the HISA board in late May, after an illustrious career as a lawyer and advising George Mitchell through the well-known MLB Report that bears the former U.S. Senator's name. The Round Table topics that were discussed hit on a myriad of issues related to the sport of Thoroughbred racing, but none were as important as what Scheeler had to say, in my estimation. Nearly, everything else had the air of marketing and salesmanship, rather than true reporting of anything earth-shattering. Scheeler expressed himself emphatically, and without hesitation, which was refreshing to hear. A replay of the Round Table is available here.

It sounds like, at this point, the two HISA committees (one each for racetrack safety and anti-doping policies) are hard at work, hoping to produce a structure that can be weighed and measured. According to the chairman, that draft should be ready by the fall, and a subsequent “final copy” will be polished by next spring. The Federal Trade Commission will then review these recommendations and cherry pick the ones they think will work within the bounds of the law. In other words, they could like them all, some, or none of them. Where Scheeler provided little in the way of illumination was funding. How and who exactly is going to pay for this – the taxpayers, the sport itself, the bettors? I've been concerned about this point for quite some time now, and I know I am not alone (See Paulick Report editor-in-chief Natalie Voss' article on this topic). What we do know is that once the target date of July 1 arrives, and everything is in place, then it goes “live.”

In his presentation, Scheeler referenced the ubiquitous “industry,” mentioning that the two halves of HISA could only succeed with broad support from it. I've been struck by that word for some time now, and I wondered just exactly of whom he was speaking? Did he mean the members of The Jockey Club? The various racing and breeding organizations that exist? What about those that own or work on horse farms? The betting public or reps from the gaming sector, was that it? During the broadcast, other panelists followed with the same overt usage. I went to my trusty dictionary, and though it has several definitions, in this context its meaning appears to be a “particular form or branch of economic or commercial activity.” It is not just The Jockey Club presenter at the Round Table; “industry” or “industry-wide” regularly gets tossed around when it comes to matters pertaining to horse racing.

[Story Continues Below]

Pulling the curtain back, Thoroughbred racing as an “industry” exists in several wide-ranging, and seemingly disparate pockets. It is not like steel, automobiles, or cosmetics. When it comes to the sport, there are multiple industries intricately involved. There is agriculture, which touches most. Equine-related entertainment networks and racetracks bring together connections, which in turn engages the fans and/or the bettors. Of course, gambling is probably the most prominent of all of these. It influences racing because that is where the money comes from for purse structures and keeping the lights on.

Currently, this horse racing nexus of “industries” on the whole could not continue in many states without the full support of non-racing revenue. To that end, in a state like Maryland, casino revenue given to the sport undermines the economic incentive to identify, monitor, and minimize the risks. HISA has faced stiff competition because of a hash of rules and regulations that are complex and interfere with a national agenda that includes safety and testing. It will not be easy for them to wrestle control away from locales that may not agree with the end product. What seems to be true is that horse racing supporters of this great sport continue to ensure the perpetual welfare for what could be termed a “hobby” for the wealthy. Take away non-racing revenue, and what would remain?

One need look no further than the situation in New Mexico and what has occurred this past year, to witness the utter collapse of an “industry.” When the state cut off casino funding because those entities were closed due to COVID, the horse people of the state suffered. Really and truly, all professional sport franchises, and for that matter the Olympic Games, have a similar problem when it comes to cash flow. Teams are always looking for new and better stadiums (i.e., Chicago Bears), and expect the public to fund them, despite the fact that the money is not beneficial to taxpayers whatsoever. The Thoroughbred “Industry” continues to be able to generate all the right incentives at all the wrong times. That is an investment that is not about future building, as it only exists in the present (See Donna Brothers' two-part series on this topic of survival into the future: part 1 part 2).

The Jockey Club Round Table participants spent significant time talking about growing the game. Who could lead the charge as an influencer in order to produce the next generation of supporters. I find this argument that the sport must change in order to attract new blood because the public demands it, a red herring. On the contrary, it is quite the opposite. I have come to the conclusion over the past few years that the public doesn't “think” about the sport of horse racing on a regular or even semi-regular basis, unless say, a scandal or horse deaths reach the mainstream media. The central issue is that sport is too insular, overcomplicated, and self-absorbed that it forgot that it needs new people to survive. It is like we have an expertly hand-built Ferrari, only to be left with wheels made of wood. It will not last.

With potentially an expensive set of programs that are due out in the form of HISA next year, where does that leave the sport and its grand plans for a revolution? It turns out, the so-called “industry” is sorely lacking in the stability department, with funding in several states that can be both essential and hugely detrimental. Downturns in the economy, which can affect everything from breeding operations to bettors' pocketbooks, makes for shaky ground because “help” never create self-reliance. Ayn Rand-esque warnings remind us that dependence is always subject to political winds (take Pennsylvania's travails). Will HISA suffer such a fate?

My sense is that everyone connected to Thoroughbred racing, Mr. Scheeler included, needs to think long and hard about how we respond to HISA's recommendations starting this fall. Racetrack safety and medication policies should be at the forefront of all our minds. If our “industry” cannot adequately respond, it may have a detrimental impact on the result, leading to a boutique sport on the verge of extinction. Those wooden wheels are not going to be able to drive this Ferrari, if industry-wide support does not occur. A nexus event if there ever was one … that much is certain.

As for that mythical Polymarket future wager on whether HISA rolls out by July of next year, I wouldn't necessarily bet against Scheeler and his blue-ribbon committees. Industry involvement or not, I hope they succeed.

J.N. Campbell is a turf writer with Gaming USA. His work can be found at www.horseracing.net/us.

The post Campbell: The Horse Racing Industry Nexus appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Brothers: Don’t Let ‘Perfect’ Get In The Way Of ‘Good’ National Leadership By HISA

In a piece published on the Paulick Report Aug. 16, I talked about what's right and what's wrong with horse racing. Today's Part 2 of that commentary is a little uglier.

In the midst of reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, I was struck by a simple fact: homo sapiens rose to the top of the food chain because of our unique ability to cooperate in numbers greater than a hundred. There is no other mammal that can maintain a colony, herd or otherwise cohesive group once their numbers exceed a hundred or so members.

Yes, the ability to communicate helped. But lots of species have a language of their own, some that we understand to some extent, others that we know nothing about.

Fire helped. A lot. As did the advent of farming. But our rise to the top of the food chain some 50,000 years ago occurred because of our unique ability to cooperate in large numbers. Quoted from Sapiens:

“Ants and bees can also work together in huge numbers, but they do so in a very rigid manner and only with close relatives. Wolves and chimpanzees cooperate far more flexibly than ants, but they can do so only with small numbers of other individuals that they know intimately. Sapiens can cooperate in extremely flexible ways with countless numbers of strangers. That's why Sapiens rule the world, whereas ants eat our leftovers and chimps are locked up in zoos and research laboratories.”

Until you get to the unique sapiens in American horse racing.

Everyone has a stake in this, and, to our credit, each and every individual has tried to get others to see things their way. We've even formed several organizations over the years that were intended to bring everyone to the table in the spirit of cooperation. Sadly, it seems that each new entity that is formed spurs the formation of another special interest group to protect their agendas and assets.

Disparate groups: can we learn from benchmarks?

We have national organizations such as the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA), the Jockey Club and the Thoroughbred Racing and Protective Bureau (TRPB). And then a national owners' and breeders' group (TOBA), along with regional owners' and breeders' groups in every racing jurisdiction (CTBA, KTOBA, NYTB, etc.). We have a national horsemen's organization (HBPA) and then, of course, a regional HBPA in each jurisdiction. In 2019 we saw the formation of the Thoroughbred Safety Coalition, comprised of the Breeders' Cup, Keeneland, Churchill Downs, Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, New York Racing Association and the Stronach Group. I could go on.

All of these organizations have been formed with the intention of making horse racing better, getting people to the table, and/or protecting their own interests. To be sure, they have all achieved some minor or major successes. But we have not been willing to set our differences of opinions aside and agree upon a uniform set of rules and codes of conduct.

The Olympics and the International Olympic Committee

I've long been a fan of the recently-concluded Olympic Games as they embody all that I love about sports. If the Olympics — an international competition, currently comprised of more than 200 countries and numerous sports — has managed to achieve a consistent level of success through cooperation, how is it possible that we cannot do the same? We are only one country, one sport. Thirty-eight different jurisdictions. Thirty-eight different sets of rules.

The modern Olympic Games began in 1896 after the formation of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1894, and today, the IOC remains the governing body of the Olympics. In terms of growth, the 1896 Olympics consisted of 14 participating nations whose athletes competed in 9 different sports. Today, more than 200 nations compete in 35 different sports, and there is one set of rules for each discipline.

From country to country, these various disciplines were often played with at least slightly different rules and nuances. Yet, 200 nations have shown us that not only is it possible to agree on the rules of these 35 different sports, it's also possible to agree on how they should be adjudicated.

Example: drug use.

Therapeutic drug use has been a point of contention in both horse racing and the Olympics. The IOC handled it by allowing the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to create therapeutic drug use exemptions that are fairly straightforward. The three criteria that must be met to grant a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) are:

the athlete would experience significant impairment to their health if the medication was withheld;
the prohibited substance would not increase the athlete's performance other than from restoring their health to normality;
the athlete could not use a permitted alternative

[Story Continues Below]

If we had kept it that simple when it came to the use of furosemide (commonly referred to by its trade name, Lasix) this would not have turned into such a contentious issue in U.S. racing. Three simple questions/criteria. Not really that complicated.

That's sort of how it started with furosemide. In nearly every racing jurisdiction in which it was initially permitted a trainer had to prove that the horse had bled via an endoscopic exam and a subsequent veterinary report or state veterinary observation that the horse had bled substantially enough to require furosemide. And then, somewhere along the way, the floodgates opened. By the time the Horseracing Safety and Integrity Act was passed, something like 90% of the horses competing in United States horse racing were competing on Lasix.

The arguments for and against are, quite frankly, pointless. Yes, some horses need it. Yes, the use of Lasix was wildly out of control. No, we could not agree in numbers in excess of a hundred about how this needed to be handled.

And that is really the point: can we finally agree to agree/disagree in numbers over 100? We are at a watershed moment in horse racing where we have to decide if we will cooperate. Organized horse racing has existed since the beginning of recorded history. Unsanctioned horse racing first sprang up in the United States in 1665 and in 1868, when the American Stud Book was first published, it became much more organized. Between 1665 and 1868 horse racing grew through cooperation, not division. The Breeders' Cup, the brainchild of the late, great John Gaines, was birthed into fruition through cooperation and has grown by the same means.

The Roman Empire reigned for 500 years and no one alive during that time could have predicted its collapse at its peak. Horse racing has been taking a steady downward slide from its apogee for at least the past 20 years. In 2000, $14,321,000 was wagered on horse racing in the United States. After a steady decline over the past 20 years, that number fell to $10,930,000 in 2020. Adjusting for inflation this is a 50% reduction in handle in 20 years. An unsustainable hemorrhage.

Getting back to the Olympic Games, without cooperation and the leadership of the International Olympic Committee and their agreed-upon set of standards, the Olympic Games would never have survived. They faced many challenges along the way, including two world wars, the Cold War boycotts, doping scandals, a terrorist attack in 1972 and the COVID-19 pandemic postponing the 2020 games. But they have managed to cooperate and, at the end of the day, rise above the mayhem.

Horse racing cannot survive without leadership and cohesiveness either. The Horseracing Safety and Integrity Authority may not be the perfect answer but right now is not the time to let the unrealistic ideal of “perfect” get in the way of good. If we, the sport of horse racing and all of its participants, cannot cooperate we will fall the way of the wolves and the chimpanzees. Individually, we will survive. But our sport will not.

Donna Barton Brothers is a retired jockey, award-winning sports analyst, author, and chief operating officer for Starlight and StarLadies Racing. She serves on the executive board of the TAA and TIF, and is on the advisory boards of Boys & Girls Haven and the University of Kentucky Research Department's Jockey and Equestrian Initiative.

The post Brothers: Don’t Let ‘Perfect’ Get In The Way Of ‘Good’ National Leadership By HISA appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Motions to Dismiss Now Active in Both HISA Constitutionality Lawsuits

Defendants in one of two currently active federal lawsuits aiming to get the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) and its regulatory Authority voided for alleged constitutional violations fired back Aug. 16 with a two-pronged motion to dismiss the case.

This is the suit brought Apr. 26 by state governments and private entities. Oklahoma and its racing commission are joined as plaintiffs by West Virginia and its racing commission, plus the state of Louisiana. Three Oklahoma tracks–Remington Park, Will Rogers Downs and Fair Meadows are also among the plaintiffs.

The defendants are the United States of America, the HISA Authority, and six individuals acting in their official capacities for either HISA or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

This lawsuit is separate from the similar complaint over constitutional issues initiated by the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association against FTC members that is also currently facing a “motion to dismiss” by the defendants.

According to two documents filed Monday in United States District Court (Eastern Division of Kentucky), the defendants told the court that the plaintiffs' suit “falters out of the starting gate, as no Plaintiff has alleged an injury that satisfies Article III standing or has pressed a claim that is ripe for review.”

The motion to dismiss argues that “The FTC has not considered or subjected to notice-and-comment a single proposed rule under the Act, and any rule that the FTC may ultimately promulgate would not take effect until July 2022. Plaintiffs' allegations of harm are thus conjectural at best.

“Moreover, the non-Thoroughbred associations …will never be subject to the FTC-approved rules unless they or other third parties independently make that election. And the States' asserted harm from federal preemption is not fairly traceable to–rather, is inconsistent with–the commandeering claim they actually press.”

The filing continues: “Beyond those threshold stumbling blocks, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim on the merits. Their lead theory is that the Act unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to the Authority. But longstanding Supreme Court precedent makes clear that private entities may lawfully assist the development and implementation of federal regulation so long as the agency retains final review.”

The post Motions to Dismiss Now Active in Both HISA Constitutionality Lawsuits appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post