Are Political Appointees the best people to regulate the sport?

[andymays]

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/stor...-clear-iceberg

Excerpt:

Even more alarming is the possibility that the Dutrow ruling is just the beginning and that regulators everywhere, as some have suggested, will begin to crack down on the sport. It's not the idea of a crackdown that alarms, but the further intrusion of regulators.

Generally, they're political appointees, these regulators. And when they assume their seat on the board of a state's regulatory agency, they often possess enough understanding and knowledge of horse racing to fill, perhaps, half a thimble. Some, it's true, educate themselves admirably, and most have lofty intentions. But many thimbles remain unfilled. Regulators cracking down -- it's a chilling thought,

[classhandicapper]

I guess if the perception is that the industry is unwilling or lacks the resources to regulate itself satisfactorily, it is inviting someone else to do the job.

[andymays]

One good example of the problem is:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...ng-fatalities/

Excerpt:

Earlier, the CHRB changed a rule on claiming horses that could discourage horsemen from placing an injured horse in a claiming race.

A claim by a new owner will be voided if the claimed horse suffers a fatality during the running of the race or before it is returned to be unsaddled. Previously the person making the claim would have owned the horse if it broke down and had to be euthanized.

The CHRB voted 5-2 to change the rule.

Commissioners Richard Rosenberg and Jerry Moss voted against the change, but Commissioners Keith Brackpool, David Israel, Jesse Choper, Derek and John Harris voted for the change.

[andymays]

Here's a funny clip starring the CHRB Chairman. A perfect example of a political appointee gone wrong. The Governator appointed him.

Heath Darkpool on California Racing. | Xtranormal

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/1251...-racing?page=1

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by andymays

Here's a funny clip starring the CHRB Chairman. A perfect example of a political appointee gone wrong. The Governator appointed him.

Heath Darkpool on California Racing. | Xtranormal

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/1251...-racing?page=1

You want knowledgable industry veterans to run California racing like they do the TOC?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

You want knowledgable industry veterans to run California racing like they do the TOC?

They aren't knowledgable about anything except taking care of themeselves while screwing the tracks and the customers. Hopefully they won't be there much longer. Change is coming one way or the other.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/sports/ci_19161504

[Robert Goren]

As bettor I will take my chances with the political hacks. I know am going to screwed royally everytime if the horsemen are left to regulate themselves. At least with the political hack I might get a favorable ruling once in a while.

For the record I like the new rule regarding claimed horses. Maybe it will stop some of the three legged horses now being entered just to pass them off to some sucker. I think the bettors will be better off with few of them running. I don't know if the rule change will work, but it is worth a try since the track vets are now allowing way too many of them to run.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by andymays

They aren't knowledgable about anything except taking care of themeselves while screwing the tracks and the customers. Hopefully they won't be there much longer. Change is coming one way or the other.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/sports/ci_19161504

I see absolutely no reason to believe the new bunch of horsemen will be any better than the old bunch of horsemen from a bettor's stand point. I have yet to hear a horseman who didn't have a very low opinion of the bettors. There may be one or two someplace, but they are extremely rare and they certainly are not going to be put into a position of power by their fellow horsemen.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

As bettor I will take my chances with the political hacks. I know am going to screwed royally everytime if the horsemen are left to regulate themselves. At least with the political hack I might get a favorable ruling once in a while.

For the record I like the new rule regarding claimed horses. Maybe it will stop some of the three legged horses now being entered just to pass them off to some sucker. I think the bettors will be better off with few of them running. I don't know if the rule change will work, but it is worth a try since the track vets are now allowing way too many of them to run.

It might sound good but think of all the unintended consequences.

If they are thinking about changing something of this magnitude then they should let the Owners and Trainers vote on it. I listened to the meeting and it was a farce.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I see absolutely no reason to believe the new bunch of horsemen will be any better than the old bunch of horsemen from a bettor's stand point. I have yet to hear a horseman who didn't have a very low opinion of the bettors. There may be one or two someplace, but they are extremely rare and they certainly are not going to be put into a position of power by their fellow horsemen.

First of all they can't be any worse.

Secondly this was put in their stated goals when they started the organization.

http://calhorsemen.org/immediate_goals.htm

• Support, respect and listen to our customers, the horseplayers.

• Increase purses through informed decisions, such as optimizing takeout and allowing wagering flexibility.

They asked for and received input from Horseplayers. There is nothing to indicate that they will go back on their word.

[Hanover1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I see absolutely no reason to believe the new bunch of horsemen will be any better than the old bunch of horsemen from a bettor's stand point. I have yet to hear a horseman who didn't have a very low opinion of the bettors. There may be one or two someplace, but they are extremely rare and they certainly are not going to be put into a position of power by their fellow horsemen.

How did we get from political hacks to the horsemen? The thread is about political appointees? As for hearing how many horsemen have a low opinion of bettors, you have not met very many horsemen personally, or this opinion changes.
On that note, we want changes changes, so let there be changes......

[5k-claim]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

I see absolutely no reason to believe the new bunch of horsemen will be any better than the old bunch of horsemen from a bettor's stand point. I have yet to hear a horseman who didn't have a very low opinion of the bettors. There may be one or two someplace, but they are extremely rare and they certainly are not going to be put into a position of power by their fellow horsemen.

More horsemen should find this message board and read your posts. That would change things.

.

[Hanover1]

Originally Posted by 5k-claim

More horsemen should find this message board and read your posts. That would change things.

.

Would certainly help things along, wouldn't it

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by andymays

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/stor...-clear-iceberg

Excerpt:

Even more alarming is the possibility that the Dutrow ruling is just the beginning and that regulators everywhere, as some have suggested, will begin to crack down on the sport. It's not the idea of a crackdown that alarms, but the further intrusion of regulators.

Generally, they're political appointees, these regulators. And when they assume their seat on the board of a state's regulatory agency, they often possess enough understanding and knowledge of horse racing to fill, perhaps, half a thimble. Some, it's true, educate themselves admirably, and most have lofty intentions. But many thimbles remain unfilled. Regulators cracking down -- it's a chilling thought,

The horse racing industry lost all credibility, as far as policing this sport is concerned, when they failed to dispose of Richard Dutrow long ago. It should never have taken this long to finally get rid of him.

And Gary West, the author of this article, should be ashamed of himself for twisting the facts just to strengthen his argument.

It isn't the 18% winning trainers who have us questioning their integrity and begging for more scrutiny into their operating methods; it's those obscure trainers, who have suddenly proclaimed their genius by winning upwards of 30% of their starts...and they can be found in practically every racing circuit out there.

Also, Mr. West's statement that "these suspicions are encouraged by envy", is a slap in the face of every honest trainer in the game.

And please spare us the argument that some of these "supertrainers" have never been caught using illegal drugs...

The sport's laboratories are so underequipped, it has been widely reported that the cheaters are always a step or two ahead of detection.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The horse racing industry lost all credibility, as far as policing this sport is concerned, when they failed to dispose of Richard Dutrow long ago. It should never have taken this long to finally get rid of him.

And Gary West, the author of this article, should be ashamed of himself for twisting the facts just to strengthen his argument.

It isn't the 18% winning trainers who have us questioning their integrity and begging for more scrutiny into their operating methods; it's those obscure trainers, who have suddenly proclaimed their genius by winning upwards of 30% of their starts...and they can be found in practically every racing circuit out there.

Also, Mr. West's statement that "these suspicions are encouraged by envy", is a slap in the face of every honest trainer in the game.

And please spare us the argument that some of these "supertrainers" have never been caught using illegal drugs...

The sport's laboratories are so underequipped, it has been widely reported that the cheaters are always a step or two ahead of detection.

I know I am in the minority on the drug issue and I do know that some cheat but from my perspective and from my experience in California there is no doubt in my mind that the real crooks who do the most harm to the game are some of the regulators/racing officials who are supposed to act in the best interest of Horse Racing. It's a combination of incompetence and corruption. Slowly but surely people are seeing this play out in California.

Here is one of the best examples.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-to-bitter-end

Excerpt:


Frank Moore, chief of the CHRB's investigation unit from November 2000 until his retirement in February 2007, supports Mullins' contention that he was being pursued by Fermin.

"The truth is we were targeting Jeff Mullins; he was one of several trainers," Moore said. "We were concentrating on him. We had his barn under surveillance. We stationed investigators there."

Barn searches, he said, were routine and the horses of certain trainers, including Mullins, were subject to out-of-competition testing for blood doping.

A document obtained by The Blood-Horse of an email message from Fermin lists Mullins as one of five trainers whose horses' blood samples were to be retained and frozen for future testing. The UC Davis lab keeps hundreds of such samples in storage so they can be tested again as new substances are identified.

Moore said it was an odd time to be a CHRB investigator. Fermin, he noted, came into office promising to clean up drug cheating. Her predecessor, Roy C. Wood, had been criticized by some for settling on the side of leniency with trainers found responsible for medication violations.

"Mullins was winning at the time and if you were winning at a high percentage, you were presumed to be cheating," Moore said. "The investigator's job was to find out how."

Mullins' objection to his treatment begins with the 2006 case involving Robs Coin, an Idaho-bred claiming horse he took for $32,000 on behalf of owner Darren Carraway. Robs Coin finished second in a $40,000 claiming race at Hollywood Park July 8, 2006 and was randomly selected for post-race testing.

Analysis of the urine sample done by the equine testing laboratory at the University of California-Davis resulted in a positive finding for mepivacaine, a local anesthetic commonly used for suturing after routine veterinary procedures. Mullins vigorously protested his innocence in the case, saying the horse was perfectly sound and would not have required mepivacaine for any purpose.

Jerald Mosely, the deputy attorney general prosecuting the case, did not submit the results of a report from Dr. Gus Cothran, a DNA expert from Texas A&M University, according to the report of the administrative law judge. Cothran, who was acting in response to a request from Mosely, compared the original urine sample tested by UC-Davis to urine, blood and hair samples taken from Robs Coin.

According to his affidavit at the time, "the original urine sample (found to contain mepivacaine) was contaminated with the presence of more than one horse."

Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...#ixzz1bhe9Vm00