Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I think this guy made a lot of assumptions with no proof just like the first guy did.
|
It's an interesting situation. What Martin seems to be saying is that the proof racing is not the cesspool of cheating Gorajec wants people to believe is the absence of proof it is. As I've mentioned a lot of the "proof" is isolated incidents, hyperbole and anecdote. You've got one guy here who doesn't believe how a horse's spleen works. How do you convince people racing is more on the up and up than not when you can't convince them veterinary science is real?
If the proof isn't positive tests, whether pre-race or post-race, what is it? Martin said a lot of the same things I'd been saying about where we need to do.
As one who has been in the trenches on these issues for the past 20 years, what is needed is: increased electronic surveillance; more boots-on-the-ground investigators; aggressive research into designer drugs and emerging threats; a dedicated way to pay for all this as well as expanded testing; AND a lot less politics.
If the idea is to catch 100% of the cheaters, best we give up now. It's not that some level of violation is acceptable, but if we clean out the trainers who go from 12% to 40% overnight through illegal means, keep the rate of violation for legal therapeutics below one-half of one percent, keep the rate of violation of Class 1 and 2 substances (including steroids) to less than 50 a year, that's probably about as close to perfection as you are going to get. You certainly wouldn't hold the police department to a higher standard than that.
I've criticized (I believe deservedly) racing commissions for not doing enough to build public confidence. They are great about putting out press releases when they get a positive. I'd like to see some press releases on how they prevented them from ever happening.