RIP to Mongolian Groom and CA Racing

[cj]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Actually, I am highly critical of this. That horse should have been put down right there on the track...but they didn't because they didn't want that as part of the broadcast and/or part of the "on track experience" as well.

Anyone involved with horses or horse racing for more than two minutes would know that horse was unsavable and should have been euthanized on the spot.

People shouting the loudest about the welfare of horses should be upset about THAT. I know I am.

I thought this initially. It was obvious he wasn't going to make it, seemed odd they vanned him off, but I get why they did it. I hope he didn't suffer any extra because of it.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan View Post
How do you know any of this? How many barns are you in every week? How many trainers and owners are you talking to daily?

Don’t attempt to lecture me on what goes on in the barns and in this sport. I see 1000 times more than you do, and I know the good, the bad, and the ugly. I’ve been fighting against the bad and ugly the whole time I’ve worked in this sport, and if I’m frustrated and angry at how it continues, I have that right. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Who, specifically, did YOU are your friend notify when you saw such an obvious lame horse about to run?

Obviously, WE, who are not as smart as you guys could not do this.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by castaway01

I know Tom has posted many times that he'd like to see the federal government get involved with running horse racing because the tracks/states don't seem capable of doing it themselves. The problem with that is a lot of the people involved in the federal government are clueless about horse racing (among other things). So then you get a bunch of powerful half-informed officials trying to run something they don't know much about...which is also our current situation.

We replace incompetent idiot with other incompetent idiots.

The idea is, a body of experts in the field would create the standards, as is done with the ISO standards for manufacturing, environment, etc. and then accredited third parties would audit the tracks for compliance. Proof of compliance would be required to operate a track. The idea that wagering goes across state lines would probably be the basis for the Fed having authority. If a track did not want to comply, it would have to operate in a vacuum, in it's own state, if allowed to do so.

That degree of federal regulation would be as unobtrusive as it is in manufacturing today.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by AlsoEligible

I'm not th.…...

What concerns me is that eventually someone (or a group like PETA or HorseRacingWrongs) will get tired of the cycle, and take matters into their own hands with a ballot initiative. Collecting signatures won't be an issue, and I believe they have until next July or August to go through the process of getting it on the ballot. That's plenty of time.

If that happens, it's curtains for CA, no doubt in my mind. All of the "but muh jobs and economic impact" arguments in the world won't sway voters when the other side can just show videos of gruesome breakdowns, green tarps, and horses in landfills, while asking the question "why are we doing this?"

…...

You’re exactly right, if it gets on the ballot, it’s over. Here in Florida in Nov. 2018, voters overwhelming voted to end dog racing 69% to 31% (one is still allowed to bet on dog racing in Florida OTBs, on races in the five states that still allow it) animal rights groups raised $3 million and drew endorsements from celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres, Bette Midler, and Pierce Brosnan. By contrast, the pro-racing groups raised only $560,000 (according to tracking by Ballotpedia). We all know damn well that in CA there will be quite a few Hollywood type to follow that lead.

If CA wants to prevent that ballot from happening, I believe they have to listen to the politicians and PETA. Feinstein said recently that CA tracks should install synthetic surfaces. It was a puzzling statement that just kind of came out of the blue. Also, PETA had been saying for a long time that they are not interested in ending horse racing and that they would leave it alone if they got rid of race-day medication. Of course arrogant racing didn’t listen. It wasn’t until recently that PETA has been saying that racing must end.

The president of PETA and the commissioner of racing should get together and come up with a plan to stop that ballot from happening. Whoops, those people don't exist.

[AltonKelsey]

Does no one have video of the pre race warmups ? I'd like to see if there were any signs at all.



NBC is making sure it cant be viewed. Did anyone capture it ?

[AndyC]

What rational reason would an owner or trainer have to run a valuable horse when it was clearly not physically able to run. Given that such a horse would in most cases not earn any purse money while at the same time being at risk of further injury or death. How stupid could these owners and trainers be that it is now considered essential that there be some major oversight to prevent them from harming horses with their stupidity?

I can clearly see where there could be a problem with low-level claiming horses looking to be dumped but I don't see any logic when it comes to high level horses.

[AlsoEligible]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Interesting post.


What are your thoughts on California Senate Bill 469 , which enables the CHRB to:

19481.7. (a) (1) The board may, at any time, immediately suspend a license to conduct a racing meeting when necessary to protect the health and safety of the horses or riders that are present at the racing meeting.

(2) The suspension shall require a vote of at least four members of the board.

(3) The suspension shall remain in effect until the board determines that the matters jeopardizing the health and safety of the horses or riders that are present at the racing meeting have been adequately addressed.

Important to note that the CHRB has always had the ability to suspend a meeting. All this does is waive the 10 day notice that was previously required before they could vote on it.

Sounds good on paper, but exercising it would actually require the CHRB to do something. They prefer talking to action, and the next time they stand up to TSG will be the first time.

Besides, if there's another rash of breakdowns severe enough that the CHRB was actually considering a suspension, my guess is that TSG is smart enough to do it themselves first (like we saw in March) and save face.

In short, this law was a smart PR move to make activists think the state was actually doing something to combat fatalities. In reality, I would be surprised if it's ever used.

[bob60566]

This answers few questions about the horse.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...efore-classic/

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Tom

We replace incompetent idiot with other incompetent idiots.

The idea is, a body of experts in the field would create the standards, as is done with the ISO standards for manufacturing, environment, etc. and then accredited third parties would audit the tracks for compliance. Proof of compliance would be required to operate a track. The idea that wagering goes across state lines would probably be the basis for the Fed having authority. If a track did not want to comply, it would have to operate in a vacuum, in it's own state, if allowed to do so.

That degree of federal regulation would be as unobtrusive as it is in manufacturing today.

Well, I always viewed it being tough to do because this is not the NFL---tracks are competitors, yet in some ways also working together (simulcasting). But if you could get competent people not making biased decisions in charge, then...sorry, I had to stop laughing before I could write more. This is the government we're talking about.

Seriously though, what you wrote is logical and sound. I just don't believe the right people would be put in charge to execute it.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by Wabash

And for anyone who thought WoW had anything to do with this, the video above shows he clearly did not.

No, he did not. Yes, you are correct.

[JustRalph]

I would vote to end dog racing

It’s one sport that I actually think is lower than horse racing on the humanity tree

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Actually, I am highly critical of this. That horse should have been put down right there on the track...but they didn't because they didn't want that as part of the broadcast and/or part of the "on track experience" as well.

Anyone involved with horses or horse racing for more than two minutes would know that horse was unsavable and should have been euthanized on the spot.

People shouting the loudest about the welfare of horses should be upset about THAT. I know I am.

Agree.

Can't imagine what that horse went thru being loaded onto a trailer.....He was clearly in bad shape even before the jockey jumped off him.......what did he do, hop on his one back leg to the trailer? They don't have equine slings hung from the ceiling out on the track to lift a lame horse like they do at equine clinics.

Did they carry him on to the trailer?

That video footage was truly gruesome. They should have put up the green sheets and euthanized him right then and there behind it.

[FakeNameChanged]

Originally Posted by Tom

We replace incompetent idiot with other incompetent idiots.

The idea is, a body of experts in the field would create the standards, as is done with the ISO standards for manufacturing, environment, etc. and then accredited third parties would audit the tracks for compliance. Proof of compliance would be required to operate a track. The idea that wagering goes across state lines would probably be the basis for the Fed having authority. If a track did not want to comply, it would have to operate in a vacuum, in it's own state, if allowed to do so.

That degree of federal regulation would be as unobtrusive as it is in manufacturing today.

Tom, I worked in the ISO environment for most of my career. The governement has nothing to do with ISO. But I agree with your idea.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Well, I always viewed it being tough to do because this is not the NFL---tracks are competitors, yet in some ways also working together (simulcasting). But if you could get competent people not making biased decisions in charge, then...sorry, I had to stop laughing before I could write more. This is the government we're talking about.

Seriously though, what you wrote is logical and sound. I just don't believe the right people would be put in charge to execute it.

The fact that tracks are competitors and owned by different interests in different states is not an issue. The groups wouldn't run the tracks, just set the standard for how they are run. If you get ISO certified for manufacturing, you are good to go at GM, Ford, GE, Acme Manufacturing, etc. Racing is a perfect industry for this kind of regulation - YOu run YOUR track but you have to comply with OUR standards. And prove it.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Whosonfirst

Tom, I worked in the ISO environment for most of my career. The governement has nothing to do with ISO. But I agree with your idea.

Yes, I am just saying the Fed would have the authority to require it of the tracks. In the real world, industries have enough sense to require themselves to do it ( and thier suppliers).