http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/84054/phipps-clock-ticking-on-adoption-of-reforms
Many of the comments to this article make a valid point: The current American
thoroughbred might not be strong enough to withstand training and racing
without meds, so calling for abruptly ceasing or curtailing the use of these
meds might not be realistic. The implication is also that a younger
generation of trainers, having never had to prepare and race horses without
meds, would be a little lost.
An abrupt withdrawal from meds might have a catastrophic effect on American
racing and American racehorses; a more gradual withdrawal is more realistic;
at the same time, some serious editing of the stud book must be undertaken:
Why not limit the number of unraced mares and especially stallions who are
permitted to breed? How about limiting the stallion register to stakes
winners, multiple winners, and/or winners of a minimum of say $350,000? How
about not letting a stallion cover mares until the age of 6?
Anybody see a decreased number of early retirements based on these parameters?
Anybody see larger fields in stakes races for colts and horses?
Or is it better to have a 2YO work an eighth of a mile in 9.32, sell for $8.5M,
never make it to the races, and stand stud in Florida for $3K? Where he will
produce what? babies who might be able to run an eighth of a mile even faster
than their daddy?
Change is important, but must be part of a coordinated effort towards a goal.
Many agree that Racing needs to be contracted, and usually these folks speak
about closing racetracks; the truth is that this would be problematic if the
foal crop was not also proportionately reduced. To abruptly ban race day
lasix and various other meds would probably have at least a short term
catastrophic effect on Racing; a gradual weaning combined with the
strengthening of American bloodstock is probably more realistic.
Its been 40 years since the so called Decade of Champions; its a long road
back to that level of Racing.