$31.00 donated in past month
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay FeatureRelated Categories: U.S. | Animal Liberation
The drug days of summer horse racing
Thoroughbred I'll Have Another would seem to be in an exalted position as the Belmont Stakes approaches—but even horses at the top of the racing world are at constant risk. I'll Have Another's trainer, Doug O'Neill, has a long rap sheet of drugging violations, and his horses break down or show signs of injury at more than twice the national rate.
There's quite a buzz surrounding the possibility that I'll Have Another will cross the finish line first in the Belmont Stakes on June 9 and become the first Triple Crown Winner since 1978. The subtext to this public discussion is a lot seedier: I'll Have Another's trainer, Doug O'Neill, has a long rap sheet of drugging violations.
For more than a decade, O'Neill has been in trouble over and over again for administering substances illegally to horses. Just last week, the California Horse Racing Board suspended O'Neill for 45 days in that state and fined him $15,000 for a drugging violation. Statistics show that the horses he trains suffer catastrophic injury at twice the rate of the national average—an indication that somehow (anti-inflammatory drugs? Painkillers? Muscle relaxants?) horses are raced when fatigue and injury should dictate rest and recuperation.
To those of us not involved in thoroughbred racing, the questions are obvious: How is it that this man can still be training horses? How can it be that someone who wouldn't even be allowed to unload a horse van on a track in one state is garnering accolades as he prepares to run a horse in another? And why has the racing industry embraced him and not kicked him out on his chemical-laden can?
So here's a message to the racing industry: Stop blaming your bad image on the animal protection organizations that work to improve living, racing and retirement conditions for thoroughbreds. Quit your griping and clean up your act.
Thoroughbred racing needs a zero-tolerance policy. This means much more than a multiyear debate about whether or not furosemide, also known as Lasix or Salix, should be allowed on the day that a horse races. The discussion about this drug, which purports to prevent bleeding in the lungs during exertion, is the racing industry's delaying tactic: If they focus on this one medication, they won't have to talk about the 25 or 30 injections of drugs that are often given to horses in the week before a race.
"Zero-tolerance" means that repeat offenders need to find a new career.
The misuse of legal drugs to keep unfit horses racing is what is killing racing—and thoroughbreds—in America. Everyone from the groom to the top trainer knows it, but few are willing to admit it, with notable exceptions. At a Kentucky Horse Racing Commission hearing on race-day medications at which I testified last fall, famed thoroughbred owner Arthur Hancock commented: "Therapeutic drugs are given to a horse who is ailing or recovering. Is every horse in every race ill or injured?"
Retired Hall of Fame jockey Gary Stevens recently testified before Congress on the use of drugs to keep horses running: "Horses need down time. … Horses need time off to heal naturally. … [A] lot of good horses would still be running today, if medications weren't used in the way they are. Would you inject your son or daughter so they could run in a track meet? I don't think so. You would let them heal and miss a race or two until they could come back and not damage themselves more. So why would we do it to horses?"
Because there's no federal oversight of horse racing, the Jockey Club, too, is trying to deal with the deadly proliferation of drugs. They've proposed sensible rules and penalties that could get the worst of the offenders out of racing altogether. But they need every one of the racing boards in 38 separate states to buy into the plan.
It's clear that these racing heavy-hitters can't stop the excessive drugging by themselves. The entire racing industry needs to embrace reform instead of syringes. Every trainer could start by firing the veterinarians whose answer to an ache is a regimen of drugs instead of rest. Every thoroughbred owner should fire or not hire trainers with violations. This would mean a good many track vets and trainers would be filing for unemployment. But it might also mean the beginning of clean racing—and this means fewer injuries and deaths on the racetrack.
Until this happens, don't go to a race and don't bet on one. If the racing industry won’t do the right thing for the right reasons, let’s make sure their already plummeting profits fall through the floor. Maybe then they’ll quit doping the horses.
Kathy Guillermo is a vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 501 Front St., Norfolk VA 23510; http://www.PETA.org.