|
Oaklawn doesn't have 2 year olds racing.
But they did pay a 10% bonus above and beyond the winner’s purse share to any horse that won a race without being administered the drug on raceday in 2015. If horsemen are all about the $$, then this seems attractive. Jack van Berg I know was all for it. He didn't drug his 2 year olds at Remington. He testified to Congress in 2008, But as he noted, if an owner thinks their horse didn't win because of no lasix, they will just pull the horse and put with another trainer, and possibly one who abuses drugs.
“The only way you’re going to change the darn thing is to invest enough money to have the most sophisticated testing there is to detect all drug use, and then trainers will have to follow the rules when they take out a stall application and sign their license......Back in my time, years ago, when you got a bad test, you [were sent packing] down the road. Nowadays they just get an injunction and keep racing. They don’t do anything to them; they give them a little slap on the wrist.”
“I testified before Congress in New York [in 2008] and there hasn’t been anything done since then,” Van Berg said. “The bad part about it, when I was up there testifying, some of the same people who were abusing the system then are still doing [illegal] things now. Either you make a rule or you don’t. I feel sorry for the horses, and what they have to go through.”
(bolding is mine)
OTOH, if you are racing known *bleeders*, you can't just take them off lasix. Therein lies the problem. They shouldn't be ON the track in the first place. Hong Kong rates them and if you have a higher level bleeder they just aren't seen as fit to be *race horses*....other careers for them instead.
Last edited by clicknow; 12-16-2019 at 08:41 PM.
|
