NEWS
Industry Insights: Let's be Frank
Posted: Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:00 PM
by John P. Sparkman
Frank Stronach’s big idea of gaining synergy from mixing high-end retail and horse racing never made much sense to me, but I am clearly not a high-powered entrepreneur. Stronach clearly is, so he gets the benefit of the doubt on that one. In a similar vein, though, Stronach's determined pursuit of race meeting date deregulation has earned him few friends in the racing industry.
Last week, though, Stronach did something very good—and, as usual, very smart. It was announced earlier this week that Stronach had sent a letter the previous week to state racing regulators in Florida, California, Maryland, and Oregon asking help from state racing commissions on a plan to phase out race-day medications at his racetracks in those states.
Stronach, through his company the Stronach Group, now owns the five racetracks formerly owned by the public company MI Developments Inc.: Santa Anita Park, Golden Gate Fields, Gulfstream Park, Pimlico Race Course, Laurel Park, and Portland Meadows. That gives him enormous power, without the fiduciary oversight implicit in the structure of public companies, to do whatever he wants with those five tracks, but he cannot change medication rules unilaterally. Those rules are set and administered by state racing commissions.
Under our federalist system of government, however, Stronach's approach may well be the only one that will work. One obstacle to in the industry's approach to date to the Association of Racing Commissioners International's call to phase out race-day medication has been that no legal or legislative mechanism exists to mandate such a change nationwide. Unless the U.S. Congress passes a new law establishing a national horse racing authority of some description—a very long shot at best—changes in medication rules simply must occur on a state by state basis. Since Congress is currently occupied with trying to find a way to avoid crashing the world’s economy, it is extremely unlikely that they will worry very much about horse racing anytime in the foreseeable future.
The legal framework for changes in medication rules on a state by state basis, however, already exists. That is how we got ourselves into this medication mess to begin with, and, at least at present, it is the only way to get ourselves out.
It will not be easy. And it will take time.
The Florida Horseman's Benevolent and Protective Association was quick to state its unequivocal opposition to Stronach's request. The HBPA was one of the prime movers in establishing the current permissive medication rules, historically boycotting the entry box at some tracks to put pressure on regulators to allow medications. They are likely to be the primary obstacle to any tightening of the rules.
Everyone has the right to fight their own corner as they see it, but in this case horsemen, specifically trainers, are focusing too much on that corner and not enough on the whole room. The room is collapsing around them and too soon they will not have a corner to defend if something does not change.
The struggling global economy, decline in public interest in horses in general, the attenuated attention span of the Internet age, public perceptions of widespread drug abuse, all these and other factors have combined to earthquake Thoroughbred racing, collapsing the house that generations of racing men built.
We cannot control most of the factors that have negatively affected our industry. We can control our medication rules.
So what do you say Bob Evans? Let us hear from you, too, Charlie Hayward, and all you other racetrack owners and operators out there. Will you follow Frank Stronach's good example?
Want to be still in business 20 years from now? Ask your state regulators to help you out by phasing out race-day medication.
John P. Sparkman is bloodstock editor of THOROUGHBRED TIMES. His e-mail address is ormonde1@gmail.com. More of his work can be viewed at http://pedigreecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/.
READER COMMENTS
|
|
|
Posted by: Tom, Miami, FL on July 25, 2011 at 10:11 AM
If Stronach wanted he could make a house rule at Gulfstream against race day meds. That is all he needs to do. He doesn't need the state regulators to do this for him. This sounds like a PR move to get the BC at Santa Anita.
Report Abuse 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: ray, hartford, CT on July 23, 2011 at 06:08 PM
now all they have to do is make sure the testers are not corrupted by the miracle trainers,right?,what good is a test administered by somewone who can be bought?,heres a better idea when you do catch somewone cheating ,trainer using drugs or a crooked jockey using a battery,just take the license away,permanently no exeptions,that would change the back strech mentality of lets see what we can get away with.
Report Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Susan Kayne, New York, NY on July 22, 2011 at 05:08 PM
Do industry participants really care enough about their horses to actually go drug-free? Read more: http://www.unbridledracing.blogspot.com/
Report Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Randy, Oklahoma City, OK on July 22, 2011 at 02:43 PM
You no medication people realize that without Lasix horses will not run back quickly and some horse that bleed and need Lasix will not beable to compete. You don't think that it will be harder for the racing fan to handicap not knowing which horses benifited from the Lasix the most and will not run to form not to mention the owners that will have to pay the training bills amd ultimatly get rid of horses that cannot compete without lasix. Think of the consequences people!!!!!!
Report Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Ken, Stockton, CA on July 22, 2011 at 11:19 AM
Bottom line- racing cannot control most of the racing advancement factors. Bunk! Mr. Stonach's MID was the company who stopped the marketing contest in mid stream, proving once again racing is stuck in the 19th century. tweaking med rules will not chance the pubblic's negative perceptions. updated real data and innovative PULIC promotion will.
Report Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
