Pages

20 January 2009

Why does Rice play Texas?

GreenbutGame called me out in a recent comment.

'Out of curiosity, what would you do differently?'

I normally prefer to cast aspersion from the comforting recesses of the heckler's seat and generally have nothing constructive to contribute to a conversation; that said, I am also never one to avoid making an ass out of myself and will do so again.

I don't know how to design or build an airplane but I do know when one does not handle properly or when it needs some work. I can't tell you when to play a cover two but I know when the other team puts thirty points on the board, whatever strategy you are using is not working.

I fly airplanes because I am not smart or qualified enough to do anything else. I have never had a real job or worked in a corporate environment so I am ignorant of the politics and bullshit that is involved with getting anything done.

The cockpit is not the place to worry about who is right, only what is right and rank means nothing when a course of action is required.

Having no knowledge of what parties are involved in the dealings with the NTRA and the laughable process Mr. Waldrop refers to as the Alliance, I am going to work with a few assumptions:
  1. I have reached the position with a certain amount of inside information at my disposal (I know where the bodies are buried).
  2. I have a firm grasp of the inner workings of the industry.
  3. I care about the game more than my own job.
When President Kennedy announced the goal of landing a man on the moon, NASA had a total of just over 31 minutes in suborbital space flight to work with. It had not developed the technology that was required to develop the technology to launch a man out of Earth orbit.

But NASA had the vision, knowledge, faith and financial backing to persevere.

Racing needs an Apollo program.

I guess financial backing is the place to start since every incompetent imbecile in this game is too stupid to do what is right.

Approach the Sheikhs. Promise them whatever it is they want but get their money. Use it to clean up the game. Ban every and all drugs and use the money for universal testing.

Dr. David Marlin, renowned equine exercise physiologist, in his book Equine Exercise Physiology, states, "The efficacy of frusemide in reducing pulmonary vascular pressures during exercise has been extensively demonstrated; however, evidence for its efficacy in preventing EIPH (exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage) has been lacking."

Pullthepocket, in a recent post, shows the Shibboleth of the first time lasix angle. Lasix is not used to prevent bleeding. It is used to mask the other drugs trainers use. Eliminate lasix and take a big step toward eliminating drugs.

Identify the players in this game. The trainers and owners who have the respect of the industry and not just the talking heads. Jerkens, Servis, MacAnally, McGaughey and Nafzger...probably others too. Call in the jockeys, the owners that really care, Lael stables, the Whitneys, whoever else.

Above all else, bring in the government. Whether it be the states attorney's general or the Attorney General of the United States, make sure that the racing industry knows you are calling on big brother to watch the entire proceedings.

The top of the list is the elimination of drugs. No ifs, ands or buts. No prevaricating, no trying to appease the jagoffs that just don't get it. Make that your legacy and damn the rest of them. Why the RICO act can't be used against trainers that violate the drug policy, I don't know but try to get it in the mix.

Impose crippling fines on any trainer and owner that violates the rules.

Will this ruffle feathers and possibly alienate somebody? Absolutely but they won't have a leg to stand on when your policy is no drugs and they are the ones who won't go for it. How do any of these players hope to make a persuasive argument when the message is 'We are for drugs in the game'?

If the fight is the elimination of drugs, nobody can stand up to that and look good. Once that is in the bag, everything else is gravy because the legitimacy of your position will be established.

Eliminate the drugs and forget everything else. Do what is right.

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

6 comments:

G. Rarick said...

YES!! I know people are sick of me saying it, too, but eliminating ALL medication, FIRST AND FOREMOST LASIX, is the best first step to solving so many of racing's problems. There is NO justification for it and no excuses. Thank you for being another voice trying to close Pandora's box.

Anonymous said...

I agree with a zero drug policy too. How do vets figure into the equation, is there some culpability there as well?

I'm jealous of the cockpit scenario (except for in cases of mid-air collisions & emergency landings)... no time for B.S, just action.

Anonymous said...

I don't agree with the 'zero tolerance' rule, because environmental positives are no joke, I've read too many cases. We need universal drug rules, yes, but there need to be thresholds below which a dose is not pharmacologically effective - it's the only way to protect innocent parties as testing grows increasingly sophisticated. I have a sneaking suspicion that there are unofficial thresholds in 'zero tolerance' countries anyway ....

I don't think it would be possible to use RICO absent a massive, ongoing conspiracy. It was designed to combat organized crime a la the Gambino family. Something like the Travel Act, or the Wire Act, might be easier to use in an isolated incident.

Wind Gatherer said...

Kerry- I would normally agree with a certain minimum standard, below which the rules could be enforced but I think it opens up the door to those that would abuse the policy.

Pilots get popped for random drug tests all the time and the split sample is provided. If a slew of false positives were to hang around one trainer, then those positives might not be so false.

I don't know. It is a tricky situation but the mess we are in now, calls for drastic measures.

It's like the locks on your doors, they are there to keep the honest people out of your house. If somebody wants to break in, they are going to find a way, no matter what you have as a security policy.

Dana-If drugs are forbidden, then vets would/should not have a problem.

There needs to be accountability. Trainers should educate themselves more and vets should prescribe less.

If your accountant does your tax returns and you get audited, you have a pretty good case to fall back on. If vets are going to administer a drug, there needs to be a signed form of when and how much was given and what the withdrawal protocols are.

In the end, if the same names keep popping up in the system, then something has to be rotten in Denmark.

I'm sure smarter people than myself have thought of this already.

Anonymous said...

I simply don't think it's feasible without threshold levels. Even Britain, much ballyhooed as being 'no tolerance,' has threshold levels - including for anabolic steroids. These levels are so low, it's inconceivable how they could be abused, and they would only include substances that have been found to either be in a horse's system naturally, or substances that likely to show up as a result of environmental contamination.

Trainer responsibility rules, or owner responsibility rules if they are added, serve the purpose of putting the burden of prevention on the party best able to bear it - burdening them with something they cannot prevent, even with the highest level of care, makes no sense.

Wind Gatherer said...

Kerry-If there is a way to make it work, then I am for it.

The Bid

The Bid
Greatest horse ever to look through a bridle