Bloomberg Opinion Writer Calls to End Horseracing

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Kavitha Davidson a staff writer at Bloomberg View did an opinion piece calling for the end of horseracing. It looked to me like it was written by someone who did a couple of internet searches and has a very low understanding of how the sport works. If you haven't read it, it's at
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion...a50a78558.html

[alf1380]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Kavitha Davidson a staff writer at Bloomberg View did an opinion piece calling for the end of horseracing. It looked to me like it was written by someone who did a couple of internet searches and has a very low understanding of how the sport works. If you haven't read it, it's at
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion...a50a78558.html

It's best to ignore the ignorant BS that gets written for clicks on the internet.

What she wants is a uproar to lead to thousands of nasty emails, tweets, and letters to the editor.

Just let her dumb "piece" die.

[rastajenk]

She did enough internet searches to support her obvious pre-existing bias. Unfortunately, to me, there are too many people that say they love racing that share her opinion on some of these issues. I'm looking at you, commenters at Paulick Report and DRF, and some here, among many other sites. When you share opinions with those that would kill you, it might be time to think of Pete Seeger and ask yourself, which side are you on?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

She did enough internet searches to support her obvious pre-existing bias. Unfortunately, to me, there are too many people that say they love racing that share her opinion on some of these issues. I'm looking at you, commenters at Paulick Report and DRF, and some here, among many other sites. When you share opinions with those that would kill you, it might be time to think of Pete Seeger and ask yourself, which side are you on?

If we don't agree 100% with the game as it stands today...then we are AGAINST it, in other words.

[Stillriledup]

If your kid is acting stupid and you say "stop acting stupid" its much different than when a stranger tells your kid to stop acting stupid.

If you are an "outsider" your 'opinion' holds much less weight than if you wrote the same exact stuff while being seriously invested in the sport.

If you (the writer) arent in the sport why would you care if it ends? Why not myob?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

She did enough internet searches to support her obvious pre-existing bias. Unfortunately, to me, there are too many people that say they love racing that share her opinion on some of these issues. I'm looking at you, commenters at Paulick Report and DRF, and some here, among many other sites. When you share opinions with those that would kill you, it might be time to think of Pete Seeger and ask yourself, which side are you on?

I did an opinion on my blog halveyonhorseracing.com. I would argue it is time to settle the issues within the sport and show a united front to those on the outside.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

If your kid is acting stupid and you say "stop acting stupid" its much different than when a stranger tells your kid to stop acting stupid.

If you are an "outsider" your 'opinion' holds much less weight than if you wrote the same exact stuff while being seriously invested in the sport.

If you (the writer) arent in the sport why would you care if it ends? Why not myob?

I suspect it is the general disdain they have for what they view as animal cruelty. But I would still be concerned that racing has its own schisms that don't seem to be getting resolved soon. A house divided against itself cannot stand, or something like that.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by alf1380

It's best to ignore the ignorant BS that gets written for clicks on the internet.

What she wants is a uproar to lead to thousands of nasty emails, tweets, and letters to the editor.

Just let her dumb "piece" die.

I'm sort of a Michael Bllomberg-esque guy on those instances. You don't ignore the small time criminals because eventually they become the big time criminals. Or was that Giuliani? Not that I've got a master plan here.

[johnhannibalsmith]

So for the benefit of the thoroughbred, she thinks extinction of the species over the next few decades is the solution. You go girl.

[rastajenk]

Exactly. These things need to be thought through thoroughly. What is the benefit, Mr. Halvey, of 'settling the issues within the sport and showing a united front to those on the outside," which, to me, is conceding that something needs to be done in the first place, which I, for one, am not willing to concede? Why shouldn't the different jurisdictions be able to respond to different pressures in their own ways, and maybe find an optimum way forward from among the many, rather than have a top-down approach that would more likely be the result of compromising half-measures? Who is this foe that needs to be defended against in a circle-the-wagons fashion, and do they really have the standing to demand that racing change its ways? I say, "Sod off, swampy!" and take back the narrative.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Kavitha Davidson a staff writer at Bloomberg View did an opinion piece calling for the end of horseracing. It looked to me like it was written by someone who did a couple of internet searches and has a very low understanding of how the sport works. If you haven't read it, it's at
http://host.madison.com/news/opinion...a50a78558.html

Written to acquire clicks. Which is how these people are compensated.
It's a pox on real journalism because real reporting and research are being replaced with conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion....
No...I will NOT read this woman's tripe.
IMO for opinion pieces to be valid, they have to be based on facts, thought provoking and worthy of discussion...The writer should also make themselves available to discuss the subject matter...

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Exactly. These things need to be thought through thoroughly. What is the benefit, Mr. Halvey, of 'settling the issues within the sport and showing a united front to those on the outside," which, to me, is conceding that something needs to be done in the first place, which I, for one, am not willing to concede? Why shouldn't the different jurisdictions be able to respond to different pressures in their own ways, and maybe find an optimum way forward from among the many, rather than have a top-down approach that would more likely be the result of compromising half-measures? Who is this foe that needs to be defended against in a circle-the-wagons fashion, and do they really have the standing to demand that racing change its ways? I say, "Sod off, swampy!" and take back the narrative.

The primary divisive issue is use of raceday Lasix, and I've argued this is an issue in which the anti-horseracing and anti-Lasix people have become strange allies. I'm seeing that as obviously a bad thing but perhaps it wasn't as obvious as I thought. The point I was making was as long as you have trainers on opposite sides of the Lasix issue dividing racing from within, this can't be a good thing. You have states with zero tolerance for certain medications (e.g., Stanozolol in MD) and adjacent states with de minimis levels for the same medication. If you believe nothing needs to be done to unify the sport with regard to raceday medication, or medication standards, that somehow states should be left to respond to these pressures in their own way, I not sure we could have a useful discussion about the issue. Give me a successful professional sport that operates using the 38 jurisdiction horseracing model? You see top down, I see the removal of chaos and ability to get everybody rowing in the same direction and at the same beat. I see it as the metaphorical everyone singing from the same page in the hymnal. If you believe the anti folks can't kill a sport because it is cruel to animals, spend a few minutes with the ex-dog racing industry.

[pandy]

Her take on the lasix problem was on point, the rest is weird.

The problems created by the use of lasix on every horse, obviously an abusive use of the drug since most horses don't need it, is not only bad for the sport and the horses but it will get worse. There will be more pressure from PETA and other organizations and the problems that lasix has created will not go away. It should be banned.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Written to acquire clicks. Which is how these people are compensated.
It's a pox on real journalism because real reporting and research are being replaced with conjecture and unsubstantiated opinion....
No...I will NOT read this woman's tripe.
IMO for opinion pieces to be valid, they have to be based on facts, thought provoking and worthy of discussion...The writer should also make themselves available to discuss the subject matter...

She's dangerous in the sense she represents a constituency working to kill the sport. Her opinion piece appeared in quite a few newspapers, including the Washington Post, home of Andy Beyer. She was given mainstream exposure and legitimacy for writing up certain things that were alarmist and just plain wrong. For example, she seems to say that there 26 allowable raceday medications. Perhaps she is contactable, and I expect if she is she got bombarded. These people are not seen as cranks except by people in the racing community. To a lot of people who know nothing about racing she seems to make sense.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by pandy

Her take on the lasix problem was on point, the rest is weird.

The problems created by the use of lasix on every horse, obviously an abusive use of the drug since most horses don't need it, is not only bad for the sport and the horses but it will get worse. There will be more pressure from PETA and other organizations and the problems that lasix has created will not go away. It should be banned.

I did a piece called Lasix: Fact and Myth. Before the development of the endoscope many thought that only horses that show epistaxis were "bleeders" and only 3-5% of horses show blood from the nostrils. This is where the myth that most horses don't bleed originated. Endoscopic studies show that 55-80% of horses show signs of EIPH (essentially bleeding in the lungs) after a race, and it worsens with age.

I'm not sure what the problems are with Lasix since there don't appear to be studies that show long term harm from getting a total number of Lasix shots equivalent to the lifetime starts for a horse. There are arguments both real and anecdotal that it is performance enhancing beyond controling EIPH and that is a legitimate concern. It is also the case that the modern use of Lasix is to treat horses with lower doses than in the past.

I think there was a point in the article where she inferred Lasix caused a horse to snap a canon bone.

Regardless of anyone's opinion on Lasix, my point was simply that as an industry there needs to be one policy that everyone can get behind and promote, whether that policy is to allow Lasix or ban it. The fact that Lasix divides the people who love racing as well as people who want to kill it makes it a problem that needs resolution for sure.