Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grits
|
Quote from the linked to DRF article posted by Grits:
Quote:
|
As a result, the failure in Kentucky has cast doubt on whether supporters can effect changes in medication policy at the state level, and it has generated renewed calls from supporters of medication reform for a push to get federal legislation passed. Two federal legislators, Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, have called for support for a bill that would ban raceday medications, but that bill also would put all regulation of racing under the federal government, a prospect that many supporters of reform find unwieldy.
|
I've read the text of the bill. Here's a link to the US House of Representatives version of it for those who are interested:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1_3...it?hl=en&pli=1
Here are my comments for what they are worth:
The bill amends the Interstate Horse Racing Act to eliminate use of all race day meds. (No phase out period.) Use of race day meds is classified as use of performance enhancing drugs. The bill establishes penalties using a three strikes and you're out system.
Rightly or wrongly, racing likely may not even have a say in the matter.
I see this bill as a potential slam dunk. No, not based on support from the racing industry (which is largely opposed to the idea) - but rather from the perceptions of a public at large who sees drugs in racing in a way that runs in the exact opposite direction of what North American racing currently allows.
The public at large no longer tolerates performance enhancing drugs in human athletes in any sport at any level. For my money, no one in racing will ever be able to convince the public at large to tolerate (or support with their betting dollars) drugs in horse racing.
Player surveys that we've conducted at HANA suggest that just over 70% of all horseplayers are in favor of eliminating race day meds in North America while 30% are in favor of continuing current policy. Those numbers are based on surveys of bettors who enjoy an active and healthy interest in horses, horse racing, and horse race betting.
The problem I see here is this:
As you move further and further away from people who are actively interested in racing, what are the numbers then? I am talking about the public at large, the hundreds of millions of people in the US (and Canada) who have little to no interest in horse racing at all.
Allow me to make an educated guess:
If I were a betting man... - Wait, I am a betting man... - I would put support for continued use of race day meds in horse racing from the public at large at close to 0%.
In my opinion, any member of Congress or the Senate who votes against this bill is taking a very big risk... I liken it to purposely stepping in front of an oncoming freight train and hoping it will somehow stop in time.
A vote against this bill is very likely a vote for an idea that 99% of your constituents are horrified by:
Performance enhancing drugging of equine athletes who lack the simple ability to say no.
-jp
.
