Tag: The Paddock

There are lots of times that I'm relieved not to be a radio or television reporter, for all kinds of reasons.

It's an awkward thing, having to approach someone and say, essentially, “How does it feel to watch your job disappear?” But that was the assignment I'd dealt myself when I set out to research Greyhound racing for the piece we published this week examining what horse racing should learn from dog racing. In my current role, I could at least call them instead of having to walk up to a stranger and shove a microphone in their face.

I learned that different people have different adjectives for what's happened in Greyhound racing. Most people sounded resigned, defeated, frustrated. Many of them will readily say it's dead or disappearing, or “not what it used to be.” One owner/breeder pushed back against the notion the sport is “dying” since handle is strong in his base of West Virginia, but he has no delusions that the industry hasn't shrunk. Even the legacies – people who were carrying on second and third-generation family businesses, like so many of the big owners and breeders in Thoroughbred racing do – were not immune to the economic squeeze as tracks closed one by one, he told me.

Greyhound people are wary of the media, and I can't say I blame them. They feel animal rights groups have controlled the narrative about their sport, and that they've twisted things around. But the people I spoke with were patient with my elementary questions, and seemed sincere in their hope I would understand their story.

When I started the project, I'd hoped to find that their wounds may have been totally self-inflicted or preventable. Without knowing much about them, I imagined they may have made some obvious errors along the way that horse racing wouldn't risk. It's true that some of the narratives seized by the animal rights groups had some historical basis – aftercare was not always pretty, there have been failed drug tests by some dogs, and some on-track injuries can be fatal – but I can't honestly say any of it was more than what we deal with.

In fact, if anything, you could argue that dog racing did a better job of confronting the real issues at the core of its criticisms than we have. Greyhound Pets of America now estimates that 100% of dogs that don't retire to breeding careers find adoptive homes, because the breed has such a good reputation as a family dog anyone would like to have. Thoroughbred racing has made progress but has never been able to boast that, and I'm not sure it ever will. Dog aftercare is also viewed differently by racing; Greyhound breeders happily pay to support it, and praise it openly. They love to see people appreciate the animals they breed, and probably recognize that the efforts of adoption groups that are fully funded by the industry make everyone look good. There isn't the attitude many have in horse racing that if the horse is doing something other than breeding after retirement, it's a sign they've failed.

It's easier to house a dog than a horse, and many adopted dogs stay in their retirement homes for the remainder of their lives, while the average horse has as many as seven owners in its lifetime, according to the ASPCA.

Still, when an ex-racehorse ends up in a bad spot, I don't think the average person is thinking about any of that. They're just wondering why our sport didn't take care of it.

Then there are the injuries. I requested fatal injury statistics from West Virginia, only to find they count all on-track injuries to dogs, whether they're fatal or not – a far cry from what horse racing has been able to do logistically so far. Besides that, when you consider dog racing fatality figures, they're a lot lower than ours.

Dog statistics aren't kept the same way as horse fatality numbers, which are calculated per 1,000 starts in order to account for varying field sizes and numbers of races year to year. (One start is one horse starting a race, so a field of ten in a race would represent ten starts.)

As we reported, West Virginia's Mardi Gras Casino and Resort saw one dog euthanized last year over 4,481 racing events. I also acquired the numbers for Florida in 2018, the year voters turned out to ban wagering on dog racing due to concerns about fatalities. The state told me there had been 57 fatal injuries and 39,754 races that year. That works out to 1.43 fatalities per 1,000 races – far, far lower than our current national average of 1.39 fatalities per 1,000 starts.

At the end, it didn't matter. The point was, the public didn't want any animals to die.

What I found most disturbing though, was that even after Greyhound racing got its primary issues under control, the animal rights groups still found plenty to criticize, and those criticisms appealed to the animal-loving public. Even if we got to the ever-elusive zero fatality figure, even if we controlled every horse's exit from racing, our critics would have something to say.

The Greyhound folk I spoke with said many of the current criticisms by animal rights group GREY2K and others are lies, or disingenuous generalizations from dated examples. Horse racing certainly sees the same from time to time. But there are also realities someone could run with if they wanted to. Horses housed on the track really do spend long periods in their stalls, which is known to increase risk of GI ulcers and stress behaviors. They really don't get much chance to socialize, which is mentally challenging for a herd animal. They do suffer non-fatal injuries while racing and working out – recoverable injuries, but injuries nonetheless. And have you ever been on the rail at morning workouts and seen a rider or handler lose their temper with a horse? I have. Not often. I see much more good horsemanship out there than bad. But I'm always grateful not to have to explain the scene to anyone when it does happen.

Is this any different from the life of show horses in other disciplines? Nope. Do I think that will make it play any better with a non-horsey public if exploited by animal rights groups? Nope.

Perhaps, I began hoping, hindsight would have given the Greyhound people some trick for dealing with animal rights groups. It seems they've learned the groups can't be ignored, but they also can't be satisfied. I didn't hear anyone say they resented the changes dog racing made in response to welfare concerns; quite the opposite. They were proud of the results, but disappointed they weren't enough.

The one thing they did stress to combat the animal rights narrative was cooperation. Align with the farm animal industries, the dog folk told me. They're worried, too.

Racing has never been all that great at working with other equine sports, but several of them have begun hearing criticisms about safety and welfare. Every corner of the equestrian world has its demons, no matter what its participants may pretend. None of us is immune to public pressure, none of us is perfect, and none of us is without our bad actors. None of us wants to lose our social license to operate, and all of us are vulnerable.

If we're to survive, we must recognize what our horses, as herd animals, did thousands of years ago – when it comes to lurking predators in the dark, we're stronger together than apart.

The post Voss: What I Learned From Writing About Greyhound Racing appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

In an ongoing dialogue about the efficacy and feasibility of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, Ed Martin, president of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, levied the following response to what he referred to as an “attack” by Jim Gagliano, president and chief operating officer of The Jockey Club.

Earlier pieces of the dialogue are available here: Ed Martin's Letter to the Editor in TDN, “HISA Smack Down”; and Gagliano's response, “Racing 'Cannot Survive If History Keeps Repeating Itself.'”

Remember the scene from the “Wizard of Oz” when Toto yanked back the curtain to reveal Professor Marvel frantically pulling the levers to maintain the illusion of the Great and Powerful Oz?  That's how Jim Gagliano's statement about the ARCI and HISA hit me.

Most amazing is it comes at a time when HISA/HIWU is earnestly negotiating the use of the status quo: the same state testing labs and commission personnel in order to enforce new HISA rules that are remarkably similar to the ARCI Model Rules largely in place in most places.  

Yes there are differences and some enhancements, but let's face it the new testing regime appears to be no better than TOBA testing already performed in most jurisdictions. But nobody is supposed to know that or a host of other things because HISA and HIWU have insisted on non-disclosure agreements. 

In today's politics too many demonize as “racist” or “socialist” those who ask questions or suggest a different path. It's sad those tactics are being used in racing because those questions or suggestions are about how to best improve upon and move past the status quo. But for some not steeped in the details, such sloganeering can be effective.

George Strawbridge once told me after attending an ARCI conference that he thought the group was “the answer.” I laughed and responded that we can't mandate anything and those in the industry who could empower the group as a central regulatory entity would never work to do so because we are truly independent and our members are publicly accountable. Yet we are attacked for not doing what we were never empowered to do.

In Jim's world I am working against HISA despite spending countless hours in 2021 helping HISA staff understand implementation obstacles to be overcome in the states, offering to assist when USADA bailed, advocating for federal money when the opportunity presented itself, and providing over $1 million in data services to facilitate the registration of covered persons. 

I am not pro or anti HISA. I don't have a horse in this race but I am pro reality and against making a mess. The ARCI has not engaged in the legal challenges but did ask the FTC to avoid total regulatory chaos by setting aside HISA's proposed ADMC rules given recent court rulings. To create confusion and expose enforcement actions by either HISA or a State to being struck down was not a risk we thought acceptable for this industry or the public. 

In July of 2019, before Senator McConnell's HISA bill was even drafted, the ARCI quietly proposed to the Jockey Club that they use their existing private regulatory authority as the Thoroughbred breed registry empowered by commission rules to impose equine welfare requirements and conditions for registration. This was a way to deal with the jurisdictional limitations of state racing commissions without waiting for legislative actions. The Jockey Club had it within its existing power to act, yet it did not.  

As to HISA, they have been totally within their rights to build programs as they see fit. Personally I think they have made things more difficult for themselves and costly for the tracks. If HISA is to stand and programs remain as envisioned, it would be foolhardy to not take an opportunity to get federal funding to mitigate the financial costs. Yet Jim argued against this need and industry lobbyists obviously didn't seek it from a Congress spending $1.7 TRILLION that has found money for all sorts of things like $50 million to promote tourism in Tunisia.

Federal funding would mean transparency, accountability, independent programmatic and financial audits. Perhaps that's not wanted by those who gave birth to this entity despite Ms. Lazarus's claims that transparency and accountability are HISA values. Perhaps she cannot act independently or is constrained by those who have lent HISA money to operate.

Mr. Gagliano is rightly the “Father of HISA” and his overly defensive posture does little to advance the cause of making this work. It's easy to shoot a messenger who says things many quietly think. 

Alan Marzelli, Jim's predecessor, once counseled me that progress only happens if everyone pulls in the same direction. That was when the Jockey Club used to function as Thoroughbred racing's consensus builder.  Turning the current situation into a win may mean abandoning the “us vs. them” tactic which equates hammering a square peg into a round hole and the personal and organizational attacks on those who want the same thing.

The post Martin: ‘It’s Easy To Shoot A Messenger Who Says Things Many Quietly Think’ appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

To The Editor:

This Sunday is the biggest day in American sports – Super Bowl LVII. While I enjoy this annual ritual, I much prefer the first Saturday in May – or really any Saturday where there is great Thoroughbred competition to watch.

I grew up a bettor, then became a marketer and ultimately an owner in the sport. And all three of these experiences I've enjoyed immensely. And for the benefit for each, I applauded the efforts to finally, finally, finally bring Thoroughbred racing under the long-overdue establishment of uniform safety and integrity rules through the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act.

I hate to say it, but I fully expected some corners of the industry to fight this. And they have. And they are only slowing down a train that badly needs to roll on to ensure the present and the future of our sport.

As a bettor I want a level playing field, as an investor I want to be protected – and as a marketer, my lifelong profession, I want a product I can proudly and honestly promote.

With the establishment of HISA to set and enforce rules for our sport and its participants, all three of those boxes could be checked.

To consumers under 40, the most important trait a brand can possess is “Trustworthiness.” It is at the core of building a relationship with a consumer. I would venture to say racing would score near the bottom of the sporting world with this next generation of owners and bettors.

No amount of advertising dollars can cure the damage caused when a brand cannot be trusted.

Competition for the entertainment dollar has never been more difficult. While I applaud some innovation in our fight for that dollar, if we continue to be seen – by our current customers, much less potential new ones – as a sport lacking fundamental safety and integrity, the clock will continue to run down on Thoroughbred racing.

The ongoing growth and acceptance of sports betting is a major opportunity for racing. And the more our brand is seen as doing everything we can to regulate and ensure integrity, the better our chances at getting a bigger piece of the sports wagering pie.

We have our best chance to change with the implementation and full industry support of HISA.

Uniting different interests and regulating any sport is never easy. And there will be bumps along the way that come with any effort of this magnitude. But they can and will be addressed.

Watching the Chiefs versus Eagles on Sunday should remind us – that uniformity and proper regulation can truly lead to “Super” things. The NFL is certainly not perfect, but their journey to becoming the dominant sport in America can be traced partially to their willingness to unite and better regulate their game.

I urge anyone who desires a better future for our sport to support the efforts of HISA.

— Kip Cornett

Chairman Emeritus, CORNETT

Lexington, Kentucky

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor, please send it to info @ paulickreport.com along with your name, home state, and relationship to horse racing (owner, fan, horseplayer, etc). Letters are subject to editing for accuracy or clarity.

The post Letter To The Editor: Building Trust With Customers Through HISA Could Lead To ‘Super’ Things appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

In Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) President Ed Martin's letter to the Thoroughbred Daily News on Feb. 2, he once again defends the status quo with few facts and no real solutions to racing's lack of national uniformity in rules and regulations for safety and medication control.

Ed has been defending the status quo for years. In 2018, and again in 2020, Ed testified before Congress against the then forerunner to the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Act saying it was “a radical and unnecessary federalization of a state responsibility that is exercised effectively.”  

Exercised effectively?  

Clearly, he chooses to ignore the March 2020 federal arrests, and ultimate convictions, of the 27 trainers and veterinarians who, incidentally, operated worry free for years under Ed's racing commissioners. He chooses to ignore that our industry is no longer operating in a vacuum, that our equine athletes have advocates outside the racetrack, and they have influence with state and federal legislators. Finally, Ed chooses to ignore that HISA has been working hard, and for the most part cooperatively, with states and racetracks to implement HISA rules. 

Ed needs to be reminded, again, how we got here.  

Over decades, regulators have repeatedly “promised,” to clean up horse racing. There have been countless calls for rule uniformity since I can remember. Virtually every industry conference has touted the future as having standardized nationwide rules with more vigorous enforcement. The concept is nothing new, but because of HISA, this is the first time the goal is truly within our grasp.

The Racing Medication and Testing Consortium did a lot of good for the industry, but the nationwide reform we thought would come from it never materialized. I had hopes for the National Uniform Medication Program (NUMP), but once again, the regulatory authorities of different jurisdictions were unable to enact the same rules and regulations across the nation. In 2020, The Jockey Club developed a scorecard for the NUMP to see if it was effective. It wasn't. Only nine states had fully adopted all four phases of the program; 16 states had adopted only one. Mid-Atlantic states joined forces over the years to come into compliance with NUMP, but most other regions did not.

Ed has long suggested that a federal racing compact among the state regulators is all that we need. He conveniently omits that there already is a compact, and it has attracted virtually no support from the membership of the ARCI. With the ability of individual states to opt out of rules they do not favor, the compact all but guaranteed the same morass of inconsistent and conflicting rules among the states so many key industry participants have long wanted to correct. 

Ed wrote, “It's hard for some of us who have been around for a while to watch as this situation could have been avoided.” In a way, he's right about that point. HISA would never have had an adverse legal decision if the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act had never become law. But, for those of us who want change, Ed's worn-out proposals to “get everyone in a room and come up with an alternative approach to avoid the endless and costly litigation” reflects an inability to either understand or appreciate that there is a divide in this industry between those who savor the illusionary comfort of the status quo and those who know that if racing is going to truly survive it must make safety of our athletes and integrity of our game our preeminent goals.

Perhaps Ed has been fighting against HISA since the beginning because he's afraid people will realize that the ARCI failed its mission. According to ARCI's website, it sets “…international standards for racing regulation, medication policy, drug testing laboratories, totalizator systems, racetrack operation and security, as well as off-track wagering entities.” So, HISA is making medication regulation standards uniform and meaningful, something ARCI has never been able to do.

It is abundantly clear to anyone inside or outside of racing that our current state-based anti-doping, medication control, and safety rule structure is not equipped to create national uniformity and set high standards for safety and integrity. 

As we learned in March of 2020, it took the resources of the FBI and outside investigators to get the job done and bring justice to the blatant cheaters manipulating racing, while at the same time, laying bare the incompetence of the regulators that were supposed to be protecting the sport. The Jockey Club has long supported the creation of a nationwide approach grounded in federal law because we realize that horse racing, as a national sport, cannot survive if history keeps repeating itself and national uniformity is never achieved. 

Yet once again, Ed Martin is defending the status quo. Don't let him rewrite a history that he deservedly owns.

The post Racing ‘Cannot Survive If History Keeps Repeating Itself’: Gagliano Argues Against Status Quo appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post