Posts Tagged ‘Alan Marzelli’

But how is the company doing in fulfilling the mission its founders established for Equibase?

Alan Marzelli, president of the Jockey Club and chairman of Equibase, said in 1990 the “promotion and betterment of racing is behind the decision” to start Equibase. The company’s first president, David Haydon, said Equibase would “address racing’s need for fan base expansion.”

Marzelli can point to the fact that the “industry” through Equibase since 1991 has owned its data, which previously had been collected and controlled by the “Daily Racing Form.” Limited portions of that data have been provided at no charge for promotional purposes to television, media and racetracks. Daily entries, jockey and trainers standings, and horse tracking software are available at no cost, as are race results for a limited time after a race is run. Equibase.com is a popular web site, by horse racing standards, though it pales in comparison with every other major league sport’s Internet presence.

Equibase.com also strikes out, big time, when compared to what the other major league sports web sites offer in the way of free statistics to their fans. It wasn’t until I started really digging around www.mlb.com (baseball), www.nba.com (basketball), www.nfl.com (football), www.pgatour.com and www.nhl.com (hockey) that I realized how woefully inadequate and misguided Equibase.com is as a sports information web site. It’s a commercial site, pure and simple.

Other sports use their web sites in large part to provide information for fans who have an appetite for statistics, whether it’s for the very popular fantasy leagues or for their own curiosity. It’s truly amazing the scope and depth of information you can find on these other sites. The theory is that informed and educated fans are more likely to become engaged with a sport, and providing as much information as possible on the Internet, the undisputed No. 1 source for information gathering, is the way to inform, educate and engage them. It might take a while for those sports to capitalize on fans who visit the web sites; perhaps they’ll go to a game, buy some team merchandise or at the very least provide a pair of eyeballs during televised events.

Racing can capitalize much quicker, since turning fans into horseplayers can be monetized through pari-mutuel wagering. You’d think racing would provide as much information as possible to fans in hopes of transforming them into paying customers, either at the racetracks or through legal online betting accounts. (There are rumors that some people bet on major league sports, too, but in the United States that’s only legal in the state of Nevada, and the sports leagues don’t get any of the revenue from those bets.)

Instead, however, Equibase, the official database of Thoroughbred racing, uses its web site in large part to promote its commercial ventures. Let’s do a comparison:

I’m a baseball fan who grew up in the 1960s watching greats like Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle and Ernie Banks (showing my Chicago Cubs bias). If I wanted to compare the lifetime statistics of any of those players to modern-day greats like Alex Rodriguez or Milton Bradley (just kidding), that information is just a click away at mlb.com.

Even better, if I wanted to see how Rodriguez or Bradley have done against pitchers like Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens, I could plug in the names and, voila, mlb.com gives me those statistics! (Click here for an explanation on how mlb.com’s stats work.)

Now let’s look at some racing greats. Say you wanted to compare the lifetime records of Cigar and Curlin, both of them two-time Horses of the Year in North America. Go to Equibase.com and click on the “search for products” dropdown menu on the left column. There you’ll have an option for “lifetime PP’s.” Type in the names of Cigar and Curlin, add them to your shopping cart, get out your credit card and buy the lifetime records of these two horses for $16. It’s a slightly different fan experience.

Want to know how Cigar’s trainer Bill Mott compares with Curlin’s trainer Steve Asmussen? Sorry, but Equibase doesn’t offer that kind of product. (It is available at the Jockey Club’s other data company, equineline.com, for $7 per report.)

Equibase does offer some products for free, including what it calls “E Leaders”—horses in various divisions that have produced the fastest Equibase speed figures (a poor man’s Beyer Speed Figure) for the year. I’m not sure how reliable these numbers are, though, since the highest speed figure for any horse racing in 2009 belongs to Researcher, who earned a 132 Equibase speed figure winning the Charles Town Classic Stakes in April. I guess in a sense you get what you pay for.

I’d tell you more about the Charles Town Classic winner, but I’m not willing to spend the $8 for his past performances or buy the chart of his race from Equibase for $1.50.

Charging for lifetime past performances and race charts is just one of many commercial products available at Equibase.com. There are tip sheets selling for as much as $12.50 per racing program, charges for video replays, charts, pedigrees, etc.

Do yourself a favor and go to some of the other major sports web sites, and explore the vast, comprehensive information that these leagues are willing to provide to their fans at no cost. The data is so rich you might get lost for hours, but the result might be a closer bond between you and that sport. There is an investment involved, but these other sports are willing to make that investment to help build and maintain a fan base, especially among the youngest demographic that is most familiar with using the Internet for gathering information.

After you’ve seen some of these other rich and creative web sites, take a look at Equibase.com. I’d be interested in your comments comparing Equibase.com with other sport web sites.

Racing, through the Jockey Club and TRA, made an initial investment in Equibase nearly 20 years ago so that the industry could own its data. The hope I had then, and the hope I still have today, is that the people who run Equibase will look beyond the bottom line of their profit and loss statement, and begin to use the statistics that the industry owns to make horse racing more popular and more accessible. All they’re doing now is making Equibase as profitable as it can be. It’s a bean counter’s mentality, and it’s the kind of business philosophy that will stifle any prospect of industry growth.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.

Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Created in 1990 to end the century-old monopoly “Daily Racing Form” held on the acquisition and ownership of North American racing data, Equibase is a joint venture of the Jockey Club and the member tracks of the Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America. For most of its existence, the “Racing Form” was owned by Walter Annenberg’s Triangle Publications (other products in Triangle included the Philadelphia “Inquirer “ newspaper, “Seventeen” magazine, and “TV Guide,” which at one time had 20 million weekly readers, the biggest circulation of any American publication; suffice to say Triangle was an extremely lucrative business).

Annenberg and his key lieutenants at the “Racing Form”—publisher Mike Sandler and editor Fred Grossman—had a cozy relationship with the racing industry. Racetracks were doing well in the 1970s and 1980s and so was the “Form.” Prices for racing’s only daily newspaper went up regularly (always preceded by a page two news brief about the rising cost of newsprint), but if horseplayers and fans complained, there was really no option for them; attempts by other publishers to collect data and compete with the “Form” were quickly squashed, with help in many cases from the racetracks, who didn’t want to upset the applecart.

But in a surprise move in 1988, Annenberg sold Triangle Publications to Australian publisher Rupert Murdoch for $3.2 billion. The transaction made more than a few people in the racing industry nervous. For the first time, they felt threatened that the new owner of the “Racing Form” might not be quite as benevolent as Walter Annenberg and his father had been. In order for Murdoch and Co. to squeeze profits out of this significant investment, there was the fear that these new owners might hold the industry hostage using the historical and contemporary racing data it acquired as part of the purchase.

Not long thereafter, a plan was hatched for the “industry” to begin collecting its own racing data, and Equibase was formed. There were great pronouncements about how Equibase would be used to serve the racing public, making a day of racing more enjoyable, and help address the sport’s need to expand its fan base.

A new publication, the “Racing Times,” launched in 1991 (and folded one year later), became Equibase’s first customer, and before long most racetracks began using Equibase racing data in past performances published in track programs. They were, in fact, competing with the “Racing Form” with their products.

Then and now, Equibase received a fee for every program sold. That has been one of Equibase’s biggest successes: collecting fees at its information toll gate.

Eventually, even the “Daily Racing Form” (which changed hands several more times after Murdoch’s 1988 purchase) became a customer of Equibase, shutting down its own track and field operations that had set the standard for charting American races.

The means by which the data was collected always seemed a bit crude to me. Whether it was the “Daily Racing Form” crew or Equibase’s employees, the method was the same: someone with a pair of binoculars perched in the press box watches a race and calls out (to another person or sometimes into a tape recorder) the running positions of each horse, including estimated margins, at specific points in a race. As you can imagine, it can often take some time to work through a field of a dozen horses, and by the time the chart caller gets through the field, some horses may have changed positions. The only truly accurate call of a race is a horse’s finishing position, which is taken from the photo finish camera.

In short, charting races is a very inexact science, and it can lead to some very misleading charts and past performances that horseplayers, fans and horse owners believe to be gospel. As a former “Racing Form” employee, I would often see charts of races where a horse was said to be 15 lengths behind the leader with a quarter of a mile to run, and then went on to win. Using the formula of one length equaling approximately one-fifth of a second, that horse, on paper at least, theoretically might run his final quarter mile in less than 22 seconds, a virtual impossibility.

I trust that Equibase’s standards have improved over the years, but the bottom line is the charts and each horse’s position in a race at different “points of call” is little more than an estimate made by the chart caller.

Equibase has been promising for almost 20 years now that it is working toward an automated chart collection process. Early in 1991, I felt like an acquaintance of the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk when I went out to the Kentucky Horse Park to watch a demonstration of an early chart-collecting system. An Equibase executive cobbled together a microchip processor, some wires, a slow-moving horse and an old Telex machine to show that data could indeed be collected automatically. Of course, getting racetracks to mimic the project with antennas and wires stretched around the racetrack was another thing.

Since then, we’ve seen sports like NASCAR lead the way in global satellite positioning. Trakus, a private company that is not part of the Jockey Club “family of companies,” is the leader in this technology for horse racing. Trakus technology has been in place at Woodbine racecourse in Canada since 2006. Del Mar and Keeneland also use Trakus to give fans a video game-like view of a race. The technology can also be used to automatically chart races and give horseplayers very specific information, such as how far a horse may have traveled during a race (based on how wide a trip he had), and when he demonstrated his fastest and slowest speeds. For some reason, the Jockey Club has not yet embraced this technology.

In between the humorous demo in 1991 and the Trakus installations in 2006, Jockey Club president Alan Marzelli (who is also chairman of Equibase) has promised automated charting of races in the “not too distant future.” In 2002, speaking at the Jockey Club’s annual Round Table, Marzelli said Equibase might be on the verge of revolutionizing how racing information is collected. “We are in the early stages of testing this technology,” Marzelli said, “so we don’t want to get too far ahead of ourselves. But we think that we may be close to finding an answer. If so, this new technology will not only provide entirely new ways for handicappers to analyze races, but it will also provide broadcast enhancements and new media applications that will help make televised racing more compelling and open up additional distribution channels for the sport. This is not a fantasy. Other major sports—football, baseball, and NASCAR being three prominent examples—are already enhancing their broadcasts using this technology, and the information generated by it today. At its board meeting earlier this week, the Equibase Management Committee heard about the success of our initial tests conducted at Keeneland in July, and authorized management to conduct further testing later this fall. So stay tuned for further news regarding this exciting initiative later this year.”

Seven years later, the industry is still waiting for that update.

In the meantime, Equibase has been a very successful toll booth, charging horseplayers, fans and horsemen for things that other sports routinely give away at no cost. (I suspect it is a very profitable company, though Equibase’s financials are not made public.)

Granted, horse racing is a very statistically-oriented activity, and the collection of the data costs money. But golf, baseball and football (anyone ever heard of fantasy leagues?), among other sports, are also statistically heavy, and those activities manage to collect and disseminate their data without gouging its fan and customer base.

A baseball fan can go to MLB.com and check out box scores of all Major League Baseball games, not just this week, or this month, but last month or last year, or the year before that. There is no charge to go back and relive those games or to see what happened.

If a racing fan wants to go back more than a few days and see the charts of Rachel Alexandra’s (or any other horse’s) races, they have to pay for that privilege. Equibase’s toll booth is pervasive.

And that’s just the beginning of what Equibase charges for. Over the last 20 years, it has become the new monopoly, replacing the “Daily Racing Form” in that role. But is it as benevolent as the “Form” once was?

Tomorrow, we’ll take a further look at how other sports provide information to their fans at no cost, and compare that to horse racing’s official data company, Equibase.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.

Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Have you ever been to one of those business meetings where the boss calls his managers together and “wants feedback” on an idea that, it’s clear to see, he has already decided to put into play? That’s what Thursday’s Congressional hearing, entitled “Breeding, Drugs, and Breakdowns: The State of Thoroughbred Horseracing and the Welfare of the Thoroughbred,” was all about.

The members of the subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection weren’t at all interested in getting feedback from a broad mix of Thoroughbred industry participants. If they were, they would have invited track owners, jockeys and someone representing the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium to testify.

Most glaring, however, was the absence of any racing fans and horseplayers — the people who fuel the entire multi-billionaire-dollar industry with their bets. They would have had plenty to say. Where were all the fans?

Thursday’s hearing was all about reinforcing the predetermined opinion by some - if not all - of the subcommittee members that racing and breeding is in dire need of some form of federal intervention. It was a two-act play, masterfully choreographed by acting chairwoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois and ranking Republican Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, who tipped their hand that they will try and amend the Interstate Horseracing Act to employ guidelines that could radically change how the sport is regulated and conducted.

Many of racing’s numerous flaws were exposed during the three-hour hearing, which came to an abrupt end when the members were called to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. The happiest man in the room when that happened was National Thoroughbred Racing Association CEO Alex Waldrop, the last of a dozen speakers providing testimony. House members were interrupted just before a question and answer session got under way in which Waldrop was likely going to be grilled.

In short order, those problems are:

- Drugs have contributed to a decline of the Thoroughbred breed and Thoroughbred racing

- Research, drug testing programs and horse rescue/retraining efforts are severely underfunded

- The lack of a central authority or national regulatory standards, and the existence of state-by-state regulations, have led to dysfunction

- Existing industry organizations and perceived industry leaders have failed miserably to address the problems successfully

Allowing Congress to interfere with any industry is a frightening thought, given some of the pointless and idiotic questions directed at the two panels. For example, if one of the Congressman had his way, inbreeding would be banned. What’s next, nicking? However, doing nothing under the present industry leadership is the greatest risk we can take.

The uninformed comment about inbreeding was far from being the most outrageous aspect of Thursday’s hearing. It was the complete absence, both in body and spirit, of the racing fan and horseplayer. To my knowledge there was only one mention of fans (by Waldrop, in response to a question) throughout the day, as if they didn’t exist. Let’s not forget that the word “consumer” is part of this subcommittee’s name.

Shame on the committee for not including racing’s ultimate consumers who fuel the industry’s revenue engine.

The NTRA is attempting to put together a coalition of horseplayers, but the NTRA’s track record is not exactly inspiring on many levels. But before we bludgeon that 10-year-old organization to death, it should be pointed out that divisiveness, lack of trust and reticence from other alphabet groups (TOBA, TJC, HBPA, THA, TOC, AAEP, RCI, TRA et al) to give up control emasculated the NTRA and prevented it from having the national oversight and major league commission office status it was designed to have.

Jockey Club CEO Alan Marzelli was pressed hardest by House members and ultimately came out looking the worst of all the industry experts during the hearing. When asked what authority the Jockey Club has to ban steroids and enact other recommendations of its safety committee, Marzelli said it has the “power of persuasion.” It was a pitiful and embarrassing moment for the industry, or a bad attempt by Marzelli to imitate Don Corleone of The Godfather.

The Jockey Club’s same power of persuasion has been ineffective on getting a national license for racehorse owners. If that power of persuasion was so strong, a national owner’s license would have happened 20 years ago when the Jockey Club created an ownership registry, which could have been a first step toward that goal. That boat never left the dock. Instead, we have a patchwork system of state licensing that is a poster child for the industry’s complete and total dysfunction when it comes to regulatory oversight. Look at the situation involving Curlin’s minority owners, the Midnight Cry Stable. Their horse, Einstein, couldn’t run in New York on Belmont Stakes Day because of licensing problems, but could run at Churchill Downs a week later because Kentucky has different licensing rules.

If the Jockey Club’s power of persuasion isn’t strong enough to get something as simple as a national owner’s license accomplished, how can we count on the same failed leaders to persuade 38 state agencies to uniformly ban steroids and enact other necessary change to move the sport forward?

By Ray Paulick

Copyright ©2008, The Paulick Report

The Paulick Report will be blogging live from Thursday’s hearing on horse racing from Washington, D.C.

9:45…The guests begin to assemble for the hearing on “Breeding, Drugs, and Breakdowns: the State of Thoroughbred Horseracing and the Welfare of the Thoroughbred,” and Christian Fjeld, staff counsel for the subcommitee on commerce, trade and consumer protection, doesn’t seem very happy about Rick (no show) Dutrow. “We havent heard from him, so we are still expecting to see him here, Fjeld said. “His chair and name placard will be here unless we here from him before the hearing starts.” Fjeld said it is “unusual” for someone not to call the committee to say they are unable to attend.

“Unusual?” That’s a good way to describe Mr. Dutrow.

9:50…Debbye Turner, correspondent for the CBS Evening News, is here to put the finishing touches on a piece she has been working on about Jess Jackson and the horse racing industry. She said it will air tonight. TV people sure look a lot better than print folks. She’s seated next to me and Joe Drape of the NY Times, which could make anyone look good.

9:55…The room is filling up quickly. Heavy press attendance and horse racing folks who are not testifying, including Roy Jackson, who raced Barbaro with wife Gretchen.

10:07…Meeting called to order by Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. She acknowledges subcommittee chairman Bobby Rush of Illinois (yes, the former Black Panther, but that is sooo yesterday), who is recovering from a serious health issue. She then reads an opening statement that charges horses racing are “doped with cocaine, caffeine and anabolic steroids.” A breeding expert apparently, she goes on to talk about how Eight Belles was inbred too much to unsound horses. Someone on her staff must be a Bill Nack fan. Nack wrote a piece critical of the pedigree of Eight Belles, who died in the Kentucky Derby, being inbred to Native Dancer. “It has become almost impossible to tell what their natural condition is (because of doping).” Oh, brother, this is going to be a long day. “What’s going on here?” she asks. Hey, that’s not fair to use that slogan. The Blood-Horse editorial page owns that. “Work with us to clean up your sport,” she says.

10:12…Next up is Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, the ranking Republican of the subcommittee. He cites three primary problems. “Our horses race more on drug induced ability than on natural ability,” Whitfield says. Second problem, he said, “is a lack of transparency.” Third issue “is a lack of an authority to make decisions and enforce rules and regulations. There is not any one entity that can enforce regulations.”

10:15…In fairness to No Show Dutrow, Joe Drape leaned over and said, “They lie,” in reference to politicians. What? OMG. “I know for a fact Dutrow called Whitfield’s office,” he said. Sorry, Rick. You’re absence is excused as far as I’m concerned.

10:10…Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida talked about his home region in Ocala, Fla., then shifted to Eight Belles. “Was this a freak accident with Eight Belles?” He said he doesn’t want the federal government to run horse racing. “I don’t want you to work with us. I want you to work without us,” he said. Stearns talked about “rainers who give their horses cocaine and all they get is a slap on the wrist. Stearns said horses are committing suicide. I wonder, do they have mental problems, too, in addition to their physical weakness?

10:25…Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska saluted Jack Van Berg, the Hall of Fame trainer who will be testifying later. Terry said he worked at Ak-sar-ben (hey, that’s Nebraska spelled backwards!) during college and the Van Berg name was huge back then. Wonder if the good Congressman knows Ak-sar-ben is toast.

10:30…After all the opening statements by congressman are finished, acting chairman Schakowsky states, “This hearing is completely bipartisan.” That could be a first in this town.

10:35…Schakowsky slaps Dutrow a hard one. “Disappointed” by his absence, she says. Lot of chuckles from the audience when she says she hopes, after he feels better, Dutrow will join the efforts to clean up the sport. Now I am conflicted. Who should I believe: Joe Drape or a politician?

10:37…Alan Marzelli of the Jockey Club is the leadoff hitter. Says he is “grateful” to be here. Anyone have a lie detector machine around here? A look around the room shows it is standing room only. “The thoroughbred safety committee’s work has just begun,” Marzelli says, after outlining the recommended changes the committee announced Tuesday. Marzelli said he is “confident” that 2008 will be the last year anabolic steroids are used in horses for racing or training.

10:43…Richard Shapiro, chairman of the California Horse Racing Board gets off a good line: “We used to have twice the horses and half the vets. Today we have twice the vets and half the horses.” Is “pharmacopia” a word? Shapiro used it to describe the prevalence of medication in racing today. He cites clenbuterol as an example of a drug that is misused. “It was intended for cattle,” he said.

10:46…Shapiro cut off by the chairman…”You have one minute left.” He reads faster! Shapiro wants a national racing charter with one set of rules for all. He is against a national regulatory body, but wants a national racing commission. Not sure I understand the difference.

10:50…Van Berg not happy with the status quo. He needs horses, and he should tell the chairwoman that Alysheba isn’t dead (unless she knows something we don’t…thanks for the comment and the heads up Alicia)

10:53…Randy Moss is g-oo-oo-oo-d. He should be on TV, he is so Randy. Great inflections and solid commentary. He talks about how U.S. racing’s emphasis on drugs has hurt the sport, then slowly says: “This…must…change.”

Moss for racing commissioner. Seriously.

10:56…Arthur Hancock has a tough act to follow, but his folksy Kentucky accent should go over well. “No one’s in charge,” said Arthur. We’ve heard this over and over, and it’s been Arthur’s mantra for many years. Will this change things? “Chemical horses make chemical babies,” he said, discussing drugs. Great story about the cat and mice. Finishes on a nice touch, quoting Winston Churchill with a twang.

11:03…Jess Jackson trumps Arthur Hancock! “I’m an eighth-generation horseman,” he proclaims. Arthur, the poor sap, is only a fourth generation horseman. And Jackson said he saw Seabiscuit…the horse…not the movie! I heard the movie was better than the horse. But the book was better than both. But seriously. Drugs? “Ban them,” he says. Jackson also wants more disciplinary measures taken against veterinarians. David Foley, executive director of the American Association of Equine Practitioners looks sternly in Jackson’s direction and whispers something to veterinarian Wayne McIlwraith, who speaks on the second panel. Jackson wants a national owner’s organization and said two words should be changed in the Interstate Horseracing Act to accommodate a national owners’ organization to negotiate with the tracks. I’m afraid Jackson is going to get the gong from the chair if he doesn’t wrap it up.

11:10…Question time from the chair. Do you believe in a national body? Yes or no? All say yes (but Marzelli says “industry” not “government”). Mixed responses about the federal government regulating drugs: Marzelli was a clear “no,” but the others say yes, some with conditions. Should all drugs be eliminated? Yes, all around. This should be easy, then, right? She’s onto Marzelli’s confidence about swiftly changing the drug rules nationally. Why? “I’m an optimist at heart,” Marzelli said. “We certainly make it difficult on ourselves.” Now he is patting himself on the back about creating Equibase…there’s a smokescreen if I ever saw one to avoid a very good question.

11:16…Whitfield aims at Marzelli, too, about the powerless of the Jockey Club to get its recommendations adopted. “What power do you have?” he asked. “We have the power of persuasion and consensus building,” Marzelli said, in a very low tone. “I would like to see the industry regulate itself.”

11:23…”The Jockey Club is a fiefdom!” Jackson says in response to a comment from Marzelli. Much laughter from the audience. Congress wants to enforce rules against inbreeding or wants the Jockey Club to do that? Marzelli is against these “selective and arbitrary measures.”

11:28…”The army needs a general,” Hancock says, in reference to a change in the Interstate Horseracing Act putting owners in charge of simulcast contracts.

11:30…Voting break.

What he would have said. Dutrow’s written testimony:

When I was contacted by one of your staffers and asked to speak here today I agreed because I wanted to share my insights and points of view on some of these issues and I hope that I can be helpful here.

I also hope that I was not asked to be here because of some of the problems I have had in the past. I hope your staff people were sincere in inviting me because they valued my insight. I want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

I also ask for your patience today. I’m not always the best at explaining things. I’ve been taking care of horses all my life. I dropped out of high school more than 30 years ago to take care of horses and sometimes I think I do better with horses than with people.

As you may know, I am the trainer for Big Brown, the very talented horse who won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness this year. Despite my best efforts and those of the team of people around him, he did not win the Belmont Stakes but that’s horseracing. Big Brown is healthy and our plan right now is to keep him racing this summer and fall.

In addition to Big Brown, I am responsible for approximately 150 horses at any one time – 110 in active training and 40-50 at various farms getting ready to race. My operation has about 75 people, including grooms, stable hands, exercise riders, blacksmiths and vets, who care for our horse on a daily basis.

While some people’s focus is on the big days, we care about our horses and keeping them safe 365 days a year. Taking care of horses is a way of life for us. Our horses get the best care we can give them. They are gifted athletes and are trained to give their best performance when they run.

During the Triple Crown, I was asked several questions about my past and I expect those will come up today so let me address them.

My barn has been penalized in the past for medication violations. I was suspended and fined five years ago when traces of a prohibited substance, mepivicaine, turned up in a test for one of my horses. I said then that we don’t use it and I don’t know how it happened.

We have also had violations when legal, permitted, therapeutic medications have shown up in race day tests because they were given to the horse too close to the race. That’s something that many trainers in the country have had to deal with. But I take responsibility for the condition of my horses.

During the Triple Crown I told the media that my horses are given Winstrol on the 15th of each month. This is an FDA approved medication and is within the current rules of racing in most states. It is something we started a few years ago at the recommendation of one of our vets.

People have asked me why I do it. My observation is that it helps the horses eat better. Their coats brighten. They’re more alert. It helps them train. Having said that, our barn has won hundreds of races with horses that weren’t on steroids. Earlier this winter, I won two one million dollar races in Dubai, where steroids are prohibited. If steroids are banned in the United States, we’ll stop using them.

I also said that I’m not qualified to speak to the science of it. For that, I would suggest that you talk to the vets and scientific experts.

Thank you.

12:05…During the break, Congressman Whitfield’s wife, Connie, has subcommittee staff counsel Fjeld cornered. She, of course, is the vice chair of the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority accused recently by Kentucky State Sen. Damon Thayer of having a conflict of interest.

Interesting observation about the first panel from a Washington insider: “Well, they got that one set up just like they wanted.” In other words, the subcommittee is pushing for national oversight, and with the exception of Marzelli, all the witnesses said some form of national oversight is necessary.

12:25…Having some technical issues (hey, the Internet’s still new, right?).
During some lively (?) questioning from the chair, Arthur Hancock says the veterinarians are getting rich giving all those drugs to horses. Bet Arthur wishes he would have studied harder at Vanderbilt and gone to vet school. Foley and McIlwraith of the AAEP simultaneously lean forward with increased interest.

Moss makes a good comment in response to a question from Whitfield about why people don’t want a national authority. “Fear,” Moss says, “fear of lack of control.”

Van Berg sounds bitter talking about these “young guys” who come onto the racetrack and want to win and will do anything to win. “The veterinarians are mostly training the horses now,” he says. “If you don’t know what’s wrong with the horse yourself, you shouldn’t have a trainer’s license.”

12:36…Hancock was asked why the various organizations can’t work together, and whether any one organization is worse than others. He said no one was worse than others. “Ego has a lot to do with it,” Hancock said. “They all envision themselves as the saviors of racing. They have their own CEO. It’s some good people trying to pull a wagon, but they’re all pullin’ in different directions.

12:43…Whitfield asks Marzelli if the Jockey Club gives money to organizations that rescue or retrain Thoroughbreds for careers after racing. Like a good politician, Marzelli avoids the direct question, talking about the Jockey Club Foundation for human charities and the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation that funds research on horse health issues. Whitfield repeats the question. Marzelli responds: “We believe every owner is responsible for their horse.” In other words, the Jockey Club does not support horse rescue/retraining operations. At least the Jockey Club is opposed to slaughtering horses, according to Marzelli…and probably babies, too.

12:48…Second panel, mostly veterinarians reviewing research, so for the next 45 minutes or so I’m going to do all I can to stay awakezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

12:54….Rep. Pitts of Pennsylvania stifles a series of yawns during Dr. Stover’s testimony reviewing statistics on fatalities at California racetracks over the past 25 years. Whitfield learns forward and does that squinty thing with his eyes, suggesting he is trying very hard to understand all this data flowing his way. Nowhere near the fireworks of panel one. But wait till Alex Waldrop is up and the subcommittee members turn on him.

1:00…Wayne McIlwraith takes the mike. He is one of the best veterinarians in the business and has probably presented research thousands of times during his distinguished career. If every practitioner at the racetrack had his ethics and knowledge, we wouldn’t be in such a mess.

Incidentally, for those who want to read the testimony of the veterinary panel and the previous panel, their written statements will be posted on the subcommittee’s web site later today: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Subcommittees/ctcp.shtml

1:10…Dr. Mary Scollay is reading too fast for me to comprehend at this stage, but I think she must have had some Jockey Club Kool-Aid during the break. She said “Jockey Club” a whole lotta times during her review of the research she’s been involved with.

1:12….Allie Conrad has a lot of passion for what she does at CANTER Mid Atlantic, and the subcommittee members seem to paying far more attention to her than to the previous veterinary presenters. Perhaps it’s because she is talking in layman’s terms, or maybe because she is “on message” with what the subcommittee wants to hear. In talking about some of the horses she ends up with at CANTER, she said: “These horses weren’t injured from a freak accident or a tragic misstep. They were injured over time with the assistance of trainers, owners, and veterinarians — all who shoud have put the horse’s welfare as a higher priority. … Racing is not bothering to take care of its own horses, and are allowing the public — often not even racing fans — to take care of the problems.” Powerful stuff and effective with the committee members, I’ll bet.

1:18…Here comes who I bet will be the day’s whipping boy, NTRA’s Alex Waldrop, who proudly said his organization is a “consensus builder.” Alex sounds defensive already, like he knows what’s coming during the Q&A session later. Maybe he can be saved by the bell (when the members have to go vote.)

1:21…Waldrop is almost shouting now. “This industry is no longer a rudderless ship.” Take that Arthur Hancock! “The last thing this industry needs is yet another layer of regulation.”

1:26…Brief question session because of an upcoming vote. Whitfield doesn’t ask a question of Waldrop but makes a statement to him: “I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the government to set minimum standards. I think the first panel displayed very clearly that there are serious problems within the industry.”

1:30…Who’s to blame, one Congressman asks, for the drug problems in racing? The consensus answer from the panel: “everyone.”

1:32…Hearing adjourned abruptly for a vote. Alex Waldrop walks away and mutters, “Saved by the bell.” Wonder if he’s been reading my blog?

Line of the day from Jack Van Berg when asked what it’s like to train horses today: “It’s chemical warfare out there?”

That is all for now….

Copyright ©2008, The Paulick Report