In addressing drug testing, NTRA loses sight of its mission to put fans in the grandstands

This year's Jockey Club Round Table Conference focused on the future of racing, the general topic every year. Some years are more effective than others in addressing issues important to racing. The presentations at this year's conference, though, leave one wondering if the right groups are addressing the right issues.

The issue of drug testing dominated the 2001 edition of the Round Table Conference on August 19. This is not a new topic for a sleepy Sunday morning in Saratoga Springs, New York. It has been center stage often, giving attendees the impression that the industry has addressed an important issue, its leaders will act on the matter, and racing will be better off down the road. Everyone thought that in the late 1980s when four consecutive Round Table conferences presented reports on the drugs in racing, ranging from calls for uniformity in drug testing (1988), a report on the misuse of drugs in racehorses ('89), a call for standardizing rules and penalties and increasing drug research ('90), and a McKinsey study that recommended a world-class drug-detection system be built for the racing industry ('91). No Round Table addressed the topic again until 1998, when the issue was presented appropriately as Drug Testing: A Problem Unsolved.

The 2001 edition of the drug testing issue was presented by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association's self-appointed Task Force on Racing Integrity and Drug Testing. Most of the recommendations presented by the task force have been kicked around for years.

The problem with the drug issue being discussed from a national perspective is that regulation of racing belongs to the states. State racing commissions, the regulatory bodies that oversee the rules of racing and write regulations for their jurisdictions, are the chief stumbling blocks to uniform, national guidelines.

Over the years, state racing commissioners have waxed eloquently in support of uniformity and better drug testing methods. In fact, many have endorsed the idea when sitting in a hotel in Puerto Rico at a convention when discussing the matter, but when the commissioners go home those thoughts fade as quickly as their suntans.

For their part, state racing commissions generally form policy after input from horsemen, racetracks, and other state regulators. Each state's resources, including test facilities and money available for drug testing, differ, so each state perceives its situation as unique. The idea that racing regulations can be changed one state at a time, as has been suggested, would be a long, laborious, and inevitably frustrating process.

Racing commissions have not shown a willingness to adopt uniform, national policies and standards despite efforts by the Association of Racing Commissioners International and the North American Pari-Mutuel Regulators Association. If any national organization has a chance to implement uniformity on drug policy or other issues, it would be one of those two.

A more pertinent question about the call for national medication guidelines is this: Whose responsibility is it? The NTRA, through its task force, has thrust itself into the issue, but is that part of its charter? The NTRA's mission statement, as presented in its business plan, is: "To create a new, national organization and work together as an industry to increase Thoroughbred racing's public awareness, fan base, total handle, and purses." Its vision, also elucidated in that business plan, is: "To be one of the top five sports in North America, as measured by wagering, attendance, TV ratings, and sponsorship growth."

One could argue that the NTRA cannot achieve its goals without public belief in the honesty and integrity of racing in respect to the use of illegal drugs, but how far afield should the NTRA stray from its mission?

NTRA's reason for existence is to promote attendance and handle for all Thoroughbred interests. In short, its mission is to put fans in seats.

Thoroughbred industry participants-owners, breeders, and racetrack operators in particular-are providing the NTRA with $20-million annually in the belief that their financial commitment will be repaid through higher purses, higher auction prices for young racing prospects, and greater attendance and handle at tracks.

In a task force that examines drugs, the NTRA is committing money and resources that otherwise would go toward marketing and promotion. The NTRA must avoid the error of straying from its purpose. It must keep its eye on the ball.