|
|
Post by racinggal on Aug 13, 2015 20:38:37 GMT -5
I have mixed feelings n this. Something needs to be done but I don't trust the politicians! What do you think?
This is from the Paulick Report.
you support federal legislation to create an independent, non-governmental agency to oversee medication regulations for Thoroughbred racing in all U.S. states?
Yes 69.6% - ( 893 votes )
No 30.4% - ( 390 votes )
|
|
|
|
Post by Evelyn on Aug 15, 2015 8:32:44 GMT -5
Paulick does! I'm not sure. It would help individual state "politics" but I don't trust the Feds to get it right. Actually I think his headline is wrong because from what I've read there are many owners, trainers who oppose the bill. As to the BC "endorsement", who can believe anything they say as they backed off from no-Lasix! The BC has become a joke!
Barr-Tonko Bill Delivers What Thoroughbred Industry Wants, Needs
by Ray Paulick
Do we really need federal legislation to establish a structure for a national agency to regulate medication use in horse racing?
The Jockey Club, Breeders’ Cup and the advocacy group, Water Hay Oats Alliance (WHOA), say yes.
The National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, Thoroughbred Owners of California and Association of Racing Commissioners International, among others, say no.
Two bills have been filed dealing with this issue. The first one, H.R. 2641, is a holdover from 2013 that failed to get out of committee. Sponsored by Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Pitts and others, this bill puts the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) in charge of regulations, phases out furosemide (Lasix) in two years, installs strict penalty guidelines and appears to compromise horsemen’s consent on simulcasting guaranteed by the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978.
No horseracing organizations support H.R. 2641, though some individuals believe this is the correct path for the industry.
The second bill, H.R. 3084, is sponsored by Reps. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Andy Barr (R-KY), co-chairs of the Congressional Horse Caucus. This is the one supported by Breeders’ Cup, The Jockey Club and WHOA, who along with the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association/Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders, and the Humane Society of the United States are members of a group called the Coalition for Horse Racing Integrity.
This bill would establish an independent, non-governmental agency (to be called the Thoroughbred Horseracing Anti-Doping Authority) that would be populated by the CEO of USADA, five USADA board members and five individuals nominated by Thoroughbred industry organizations and selected by USADA. The conflict of interest language in the bill precludes anyone from the horse industry serving on the THADA board if they have an investment in horses, provide services in the horse industry or work for a horse industry organization.
The Barr-Tonko bill has language specifying that it does not “modify or eliminate any of the consents, approvals or agreements required by the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 or impair or restrict the operation and enforcement of state law or regulation of Thoroughbred horseracing with respect to matters unrelated to anti-doping or for violations of state or federal criminal law.”
The Barr-Tonko bill creates a national authority that will have input from the horse racing industry in drafting national medication rules, drug testing standards and protocols (including out-of-competition screening) and uniform rules for enforcement and penalties for violators.
It promises to deliver what virtually everyone in Thoroughbred racing wants: one set of rules throughout the United States for medication use, more efficient testing programs (including research and development) and enforcement standards and rules that are the same in one state as they are in another.
The Barr-Tonko bill does not eliminate the race-day use Lasix, instead leaving it up to the THADA board to draft national rules and regulations.
So, who could possibly stand in opposition to these goals?
Proponents of the bill are taking it from both sides.
Some individuals who want to eliminate Lasix on race-day say the Barr-Tonko legislation doesn’t go far enough. They support the Pitts legislation that bans Lasix and say WHOA and the Coalition for Horse Racing Integrity have sold out on principle on this issue.
Those who want to continue the race-day use of Lasix view Barr-Tonko as an anti-Lasix bill disguised as medication reform.
The only indication about whether or not Lasix will be banned, should this legislation pass, is the bill’s stated goal to bring the United States in line with “all major international Thoroughbred horseracing standards.”
Opponents have said the racing industry is moving toward uniform national rules without the need for federal intervention. There is some truth to that. A number of states have adopted the same set of regulations outlining what drugs can and cannot be used in treating horses.
But it’s in the drug testing programs and enforcement of these so-called national rules where the patchwork quilt of state racing commissions are not now and likely never will be efficient or uniform.
Some states merely go through the motions when it comes to regulating medication and enforcing rules. Low bids often outweigh a laboratory’s efficiency, or its commitment to R&D for tests detecting cutting-edge performance-enhancing drugs. One example: Truesdail, a California lab that contracts with over a dozen racing states, was found, during an independent audit earlier this year by the Indiana Horse Racing Commission, to be woefully inadequate when it comes to detecting commonly used drugs.
Another example of the inefficiency in the current regulatory structure involves cobalt, the substance currently at the center of a major controversy in Australia. But cobalt has been on the radar of regulators since at least 2009.
In 2014, Indiana became the first U.S. state to establish rules regulating cobalt after determining through testing by the University of Kentucky Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory in Lexington that it was being abused. Other states are discussing where to set threshold levels for cobalt, which can be found in low levels in feed supplements. Yet others are debating whether the substance, given in large doses, acts as a blood-doping agent in horses as it does in human sports. Some states eventually may test for cobalt while others never will. There is no consistency and appears to be no consensus on what to do.
It this federal legislation needed?
In a word, “Yes.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Evelyn on Aug 15, 2015 8:39:01 GMT -5
Another perspective
Defining Integrity
Gary West
ESPN
Some people, I suspect, hated to see American Pharoah sweep the Triple Crown. And those people, I strongly suspect, support H.R. 3084, otherwise known as the Thoroughbred Horse Racing Integrity Act of 2015. Sponsored by Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky, the bill was introduced in July in the House of Representatives.
Just the name of the legislation gives me the willies, for it implies that without the bill's passage the sport might lack integrity. That, of course, is pure flapdoodle and makes as much sense as the specious argument many vapid polemicists made for years about the Triple Crown: that no horse had swept it since 1978 because of the widespread race-day use of Lasix, or furosemide.
As for integrity, that argument had none. And American Pharoah easily dispelled it, slapped it away like a sluggish midge. But now, at The Jockey Club's recent Round Table Conference at Saratoga, several well-intentioned people trotted out equally specious arguments in favor of H.R. 3084. Righteous indignation, however, doesn't excuse or offset foolishness. You can be indignant about horse racing's problems, but that doesn't allow you to be foolish about the solutions. And H.R. 3084 is foolish.
But, of course, it sounds good, as specious arguments invariably do. H.R. 3084 would allow horse racing to wipe its hands of all medication problems and issues. That seems inviting enough. Who in horse racing wouldn't like to be free of that headache, of the inconsistency and the controversy and the relentless contentiousness? But who, then, would assume power? Who would fill the void? Yes, that's the rub.
The bill would turn over medication in the sport to the United States Anti-Doping Agency. "The Authority," as its called in the bill, would be empowered to make and enforce all medication rules, standards and policies. The USADA would become the monarch of medication.
That might seem a role for which it is eminently qualified. It has considerable experience, after all, in the enforcement of anti-doping rules in Olympic sports. But the USADA has no experience in horse racing. None. And although the USADA has been an enforcer, it has not been a regulator or a policy-maker.
Moreover -- and this is the most frightening part -- "The Authority" would be governed by a board comprised of the USADA chief executive officer, five USADA board members and five individuals from different constituencies in horse racing appointed, of course, by the USADA. In other words, a handful of people would have complete control.
How could The Jockey Club, for all the outstanding work it does on behalf of horse racing, support this? One of the arguments for H.R. 3084 is that it would lead to uniform medication rules, something everyone advocates. But the sport already is close to uniform rules. Would returning to square one move the sport towards its goal more quickly?
Also speaking at The Jockey Club's Round Table Conference was Kathleen Anderson, a veterinarian who's president-elect of the American Association of Equine Practitioners. She outlined a 10-point "plan for action known as the Prescription for Racing Reform." The initiative, she explained, was designed "to protect the horse
while working concurrently to help ensure the long-term viability of racing in the United States."
The detailed plan includes uniform rules, a ban on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to 48 hours before racing and out-of-competition testing. And in many of these areas, by the way, the sport has made considerable progress in recent years, with some salubrious and encouraging results that seem to be largely ignored in favor of an imagined panacea, federal legislation. And, frankly, if H.R. 3084 named the AAEP as "The Authority," then federal legislation might be worth discussing.
But why would some people push for turning power over to the USADA and some behind-the-scenes cadre rather than jumping on board with the AAEP and its 10-point plan? Anderson herself probably supplied the answer: "The AAEP currently supports the use of Lasix as the only medication allowed on race day, and there is solid science to support its benefits to the horse."
Anderson said the AAEP is committed to developing or discovering "alternative management strategies" that could someday obviate the need for Lasix. And when something other than Lasix is found to be as effective in discouraging exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging, then the AAEP will propose a nationally uniform medication policy that eliminates all race-day medication.
After many conversations with trainers on this subject, my impression is that the vast majority of horsemen welcome medication reform, but oppose federal legislation. And so why would The Jockey Club support something so divisive? Perhaps the answer is in H.R. 3084 itself. "The Authority," according to the bill, "shall take into consideration international" regulations and standards. "Shall," in this regard, is an imperative command, meaning the new rules must have an international perspective.
And why should we care how they regulate horse racing in France? They eat horses in France.
But some people, it seems, would like to subordinate an American perspective on racing to an international one. And so they're willing to embrace H.R. 3048, ignore the "solid science" and slap away prudent patience like a sluggish midge.
|
|
cait
Active Member
Posts: 3,821 
|
Post by cait on Sept 14, 2015 13:01:10 GMT -5
not really - they can't just test for drugs because there are so many synthetics - as soon as a test is developed, a different drug is used to replace the one being tested - now - getting rid of Lasix - the coverup drug - might help - 95% of horses do NOT need it! there's no other reason for it's widespread use
|
|
