Allan said...

Rest assured, once they are done calling the T-breds up to congress they will turn their inquiry to standardbred racing. It is a logical conclusion. To not think you are next would be dellusional.

posted at 6:19 PM on May 28th 2008

Paul Siegel said...

Perhaps Mr. Langley was unaware of the hearing until yesterday, but I knew about the hearing last week, and that information was available from a number of sources. Here's an example:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080523/NEWS01/80523064


I am a faithful user of Prof. Ben Liebman's daily news digest "Racing And Gaming Today" published on the Albany University Law School's Web site at :

http://racing.albanylaw.edu/

Any executive in the racing industry who doesn't make use of this tool isn't doing their job.

posted at 2:26 PM on May 28th 2008

Dean said...

The comment from Ms. Harvey:

"The hearing is not about 'horse racing' in general, but solely about Thoroughbred racing. As you can see from the excerpt below, the Committee is looking to, 'examine breakdowns, medication use and breeding practices in Thoroughbreds.' To that end, they extended invitations to a number of individuals in the Thoroughbred industry, who are named in the release."

I disagree with that. From the article:

Congress may look at the Interstate Horseracing Act, which authorizes simulcasts across state lines, including account wagering. The House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection has jurisdiction over the commercial practices of sports and gambling.

“Given the benefits of the IHA to the racing industry, we believe congressional oversight should play a role in determining whether the special status of the sport under federal law is still warranted,” the subcommittee letters said.

That affects us, does it not, because we are a part of that?

".....whether industry officials support formation of a national governing body for horse racing."

I think this does too. Where are we if thoroughbred racing has to set up a commissioner's office but we don't. Does that not weaken us?

“The mantra is that the Interstate Horseracing Act is going to be opened up—everybody says that,” Connie Whitfield said during the meeting. “It sounds like a Pandora’s box. It’s very malevolent, and maybe it’s intended to be. Most people in Congress don’t even know what horse racing is all about. I think it would be helpful if we got past that.”

“The thought of the federal government regulating horse racing is frightening,” Thayer said. “But if we can’t get it right on the state level, the federal government can and will usurp the right of states to regulate horse racing.”

Does that not affect us too? If people do not "know what racing is about", should we not convey what harness racing is about to them?

At the very least it appears there are overlapping issues here. Should we not at least prepare some sort of response to some of these issues ourselves right now, so if the time comes and congress does something overall with racing and we are affected we have our ducks in a row?

Or is this a job best suited for our commissioner?

posted at 2:23 PM on May 28th 2008

Andrew Cohen said...

Just received a very good and strong response from Phil Langley, President of the USTA, on the possibility of Congressional hearing:

"The simple fact is that until yesterday no one was aware of the hearings and we were not invited (or summoned ) to this one. I am sure this won't be the last hearing. In the meantime we are working on answers to the questions proposed to the thoroughbreds. In fact, we have previously addressed the genetic issue and thankfully we don't have the same frequent catastrophic injury issue. Steroids are a common problem. Obviously the possibility of federal action is worrisome but no proposals have been made and federal legislation is a slow long process. We are working on contacting Rep. Whitfield in the near future."

posted at 2:10 PM on May 28th 2008

Paul Siegel said...

The USTA is making a serious mistake if someone in Columbus isn't reaching out behind the scenes to our Thoroughbred counterparts in order to ensure they are aware of our vested interest in this matter.

From Andrew: Paul, I just received an important email from Phil Langley, who indeed seems to be working on this matter in a proactive way. Read the post before you reach any conclusions.

posted at 2:02 PM on May 28th 2008

Dean said...

I commend Andrew's work on this issue, and others who I have spoken to over the past year. Someone to pilot our ship, no matter how many people say it can not be done, must be put forward, in my opinion.

The Interstate Horse Racing Act affects us all, and if it is to be changed harness needs to be proactive about this, as well. Remember the headlines last year? Some thoroughbred tracks and insiders were speaking about changing the price to carry harness signals - lower of course. In Australia several thoroughbred tracks changed the signal price for the standardbred tracks, and it was a huge fight.

There are several (many) issues in harness, and this is certainly one of them. I would love to hear from people like Bob Marks, or Tom C, or Moira F or Carol H on these issues. What can be done? Should we not find a way to nip this before we get bit? Is this not something for harness fans, participants and the current leadership to galvanize around? Everyone seems to have so little in common in the sport, with various push-pull factors based on their slice, I would surmise that it might be such an issue.

I hope so. It'd be nice to see everyone on the same team, working towards improving our sport with a common goal.

posted at 1:21 PM on May 28th 2008