Guest Editorial: Congressman Ed Whitfield
One of the goals of the Paulick Report since our launch last month is to further the dialogue on the many critical issues the Thoroughbred industry faces, and to hear from different voices representing diverse points of view with which we may agree or disagree.
The following op-ed article was written by Congressman Ed Whitfield, a Republican from Kentucky, whose office contacted the Paulick Report about the possibility of its publication. The piece concerns the recent Congressional hearings on racing and his belief that the federal government can help the industry through an amendment to the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978.-Ray Paulick
Time to Get Horseracing Back on Track
By U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield (KY-01)
Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection
Last month, the U.S. Congress held a hearing to examine the state of the horseracing industry in America. The voices of those who testified rang loud and clear across the country and an overwhelming consensus was reached on four key issues plaguing the Sport of Kings.
The first is that far too often, horses are given performance enhancing drugs and pain killers to ensure they run as fast as possible, while masking pain that may have provided a warning to avert a catastrophic injury for the horse and the jockey. The second is a lack of uniformity of applicable drug rules and data collection statistics regarding track accidents and safety issues among the 38 separate state racing jurisdictions. The third is the excess number of drug labs in the U.S. - over 18 today - and their inadequate funding to ensure quality and accurate testing. The fourth is the absence of any one entity with the authority or power to enforce uniformity in a myriad of regulations across state lines.
Horseracing is a $40 billion a year industry in the U.S. and generates more than 500,000 jobs nationwide. It is also a part of our nations’ history and a cherished tradition. Anyone who has spent a day at the races at Keeneland, Del Mar, Saratoga or attended the Kentucky Derby or the Preakness revel in the beauty of the horses, the pageantry of the event, romanticism of the sport and the skill of the jockeys.
However, when the American people read news stories about the rampant use of drugs administered to the horses and see it described as "chemical warfare;" when they realize that over 5,000 horses have died from injuries on racetracks since 2003; when they see the life threatening injuries suffered by jockeys riding the horses; and when they discover the number of horses that are sent to slaughter every year after falling into the lowest claiming races, horseracing becomes less appealing. In fact, a recent poll taken by a newspaper in Seattle found that 38 percent of those polled wanted to ban horseracing.
I do not want to see that happen and do not believe it will. I do, however, strongly believe that Congress can help the industry solve its problems and do so without creating an expensive new federal agency.
Congress can help because it can adopt minimum standards or guidelines for excellence, control and uniformity among the 38 racing jurisdictions. Just as important, Congress can enforce the minimum standards through the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978. The industry came to Congress in 1978 and asked the federal government to become involved in horseracing by adopting legislation to allow the simulcast signal across state lines without interference or obstacles. Congress obliged and did not ask anything from the industry.
Today, simulcasting provides 85 percent of the revenue for horseracing, but the industry has not been able to solve the serious issues it faces. It is time for action. I propose that Congress set minimum standards in the 1978 Act and require state racing authorities to adopt those standards to continue receiving the benefits of simulcasting. The federal government working with industry leaders and groups can solve the problems and ensure a strong, safe and vibrant sport for future generations.
Tags: Congressional Hearing, ed whitfield, Horse Racing, horse slaughter, interstate horse racing act, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick
July 14th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Thank you, thank you, thank you. As a person who rescues Thoroughbreds, though on a small scale, I appreciate this and it will make a difference to me.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
This is the $1M questiion– should the federal gov. supervise all horse racing in the states in which it’s allowed, or will the industry devise a federally acceptable solution to address the concerns raised by Rep. Whitfield? One thing’s for sure, I don’t think the Jockey Club has the answers to the problems that Mr. Whitfield is trying to solve.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Cong. Whitfield should be applauded for his diligent work on behalf of our athletes. His ideas make sense for both the Thoroughbred and the long-term health and welfare of these extraordinary competitors.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Thank you. It is hoped that Cong. Whitfield will be heard by all members of Congress. We cannot continue to mistreat and slaughter race horses. Hopefully, this will also lead to the passing of HR 503 to end the transport of horses for slaughter to Canada and Mexico - often directly from the race track. I can no longer watch a lower claiming race (and often even graded races because of the injuries) knowing that many of those running may leave the track for slaughter. Hopefully, the racing industry will step up and take are of the horses they profess to love so much. If not, then we will call on the assistance from Congress.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:13 am
[...] 15, 2008 · No Comments Alex Brown pointed out this Paulick Report guest editorial by U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield (Ky.), who is currently spearheading the Congressional movement [...]
July 15th, 2008 at 11:53 am
I appreciate the time Representative Whitfield and his staff took to post this editorial. He makes good points. Unfortunately, I feel he and his staff fail to address an integral aspect of reform…THE MONEY!
The breeding, sales and gambling aspects of horse racing need to be nationally and possibly, internationally audited, reported and required to provide some financial restitution to the horses as a percentage of gross revenue. Let the industry work the details, but a legislated mandate as a baseline is critical to starting change for the better. Many of the gambling venues pay very little back to the tracks, horses and the humans providing the venue for simulcast. This is wrong. A standardized method of revenue collection, audited and dispersed, etc is crucial to changing the industry. The US government controls the airways(waves) for simulcast. This needs to be reined in (pun intended) for a reasonable distrubution of the wealth for rehoming, track and purse improvements, enforcement/oversight and welfare issues for track/horsemen employees.
Just a thought that continues to bother me when discussing horse racing reform.
July 15th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
In his guest editorial, U.S. Rep. Whitfield repeated the oversight committed by his House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection in the hearings it recently held regarding lack of industry oversight, i.e, there was no mention of the customer.
So much for consumer protection unless attempting to mandate fewer equine breakdowns is sufficient to justify ignoring the industry’s continued refusal to be cooperative and efficient in conducting its business. As a result, the assault on horseplayer’s wallets continues to drive both existing customers and potential new ones away from the game.
Equine safety is indeed a critical issue, but as much for economic as humane reasons. Horses bred for soundness, as well as for stamina and speed, will be less injury-prone and capable of collectively running more races over a given period. This leads to fuller, more competitive fields which in turn makes races more interesting and exciting to watch and wager on; thereby attracting more money bet on racing
But racing’s single biggest impediment to expanding its share of gambling dollars is the excessive portion of each dollar wagered on races that is not returned to winners. Consequently, even skilled players cannot play as long or as frequently as they could when takeout was much lower. There are simply too may hands that are not only extended for their share of that portion, but also trying to increase that share. Other forms of gambling – most of which require less skill, but all of which take less from each player transaction – now comprise an overwhelming majority of dollars spent on gambling.
Congressman Whitfield, assuming you are reading responses to your editorial, please focus on creating a central governing authority over racing that represents all of its stakeholders including the customer. Government, tracks, owners, breeders and players all need to support a decision-making body which balances the interests of all concerned to cooperatively and uniformly raise the quality of its product while lowering the cost to all.
ADW competition may be a contributing factor to racing’s current ills as one hand too many taking away more than its share at the expense of all stakeholders. Aside from preventing all on-line players from being able to wager on all races at all tracks through a single account, and to watch any desired race live, the extension of signal price negotiations to third parties is tearing the industry apart.
Lack of foresight, initiative, and common purpose kept tracks from developing cost-capped cooperatives for processing on-line wagers and providing live and replay video in the same way they did for collecting contestant performance data. This can, and should be, corrected at the conclusion of all existing ADW contracts.
If ADWs are to continue to exist as independent businesses, they should be compensated on a per-transaction fee basis, and video availability should be funded independently of wagering directly by the customer who could then choose between options including live paddock viewing as well as handle-prompting “expert opinions.â€
The perversion of the pari-mutuel system known as rebating which provides high-volume bettors with effectively lower takeout needs to be terminated, and a level playing field re-established for all participants through lower direct takeout comparable with those of Hong Kong and Australia This is achievable by supplementing the preceding ADW reform with
1) Lowering horsemen’s costs for veterinary bills through a) substance-free uniform rules of racing , b) breeding reform, and c) changes to industry practices regarding horses under the age of three..
2) Discouraging inflated sales prices by reducing the number of over-valued graded stakes and re-distributing said purse money to open claiming and allowance events.
3) De-emphasizing races restricted to state-breds in favor of incentivized state-bred competition within open races.
4) Cooperatively scheduling graded stakes to avoid divisional conflicts and encourage competition and rematches at each grade level.
5) Reduce state and local tax rates to uniformly lower levels to achieve a net increase in share of expanded handle.
Such cost reductions would also improve the quality of racing nationwide; further contributing to increased handle while improving equine safety.
A strong racing commissioner not beholding to any stake holder group — who can effect unity as well as enforce uniformity — can save the sport for all of its passionate supporters. Such a commissioner, and governing body, could be defined and empowered through the IHA which currently empowers abuse of horses and horseplayers alike.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I hope this guy gets cracking on this badly needed agenda before the game slips away from us.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
[...] Ed Whitfield (R-KY) has suggested in a recent Paulick Report editorial (here) that the IHA could serve as the leverage to impose minimum standards. If Congress does anything [...]
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
[...] guest editorial submitted to the Paulick Report by Kentucky Congressman Ed Whitfield is sure to have heads shaking [...]
July 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am
If Congress does get involved with the current state of racing, I hope they take a long look at the take out process insofar as it applies to ADW’s. Giving the ADW a deserving portion of the take out is OK, however, when the ADW uses part of its share of the take out as a marketing tool, by giving rebates, it destroys the pari mutuel process. Pari Mutuel wagering or “wagering among ourselves” cannot function with lower take outs to a few. The guy wagering at the track should be on a even playing field with everybody else.