Let's Make Horse Racing Great Again!

President Donald Trump took some time off Twitter to sign 8 executive order specifically having to do with horse racing.

"Horse racing is a great American pastime. Many jobs depend on the game. But tragically, the game has been dying for years. It is so bad, that total handle went down even under Obama when just about everything including how much Americans gamble went up.

I alone can fix horse racing and create many many more jobs in the process. Handle will triple in just two years thanks to these executive orders. Let's make horse racing great again!"

"I know more about track takeout than the whales do. The lower the takeout, the more money that goes back into the gambler's pocket. And the gambler isn't going to spend that extra money on a course at Trump U., because Trump U. doesn't exist anymore thanks to the dishonest media, no, they are going to bet it back on the horses, and because they'll be able to bet more often, they will tell their family and friends how much fun they are having and how easy it is to bet on the races. Soon everyone in America, except the deceased, the illegal aliens and the minority of voters who voted against me, will be betting on the 7 horse in the Kentucky Derby. I saw something on Fox News that the 7 is a lock this year.

As for the international 16% cap, I already have Russia and all their racetracks on board."

"I listen closely to the people, and one of my biggest supporters, I forget the guy's name, told me about this breakage situation. It is so wrong. Gamblers should get back everything they have coming, and once again, the more they have in their pockets, the more they will bet, and the longer they will bet. I ran an extremely successful casino empire, I know all about churn, believe me."

"Horse racing needs stars like the Kardashians. If the Kardashians retired to pop out babies, nobody would watch them. And this order should strengthen the breed too. The reason I'm the President at 70 today is because of great genes, everyone in my family has great genes, you don't see me retiring early, only people with bad genes retire early."

"I know this race day Lasix ban is going to anger the Bernie Sanders supporting Left but it must be done. No Bernie, if a horse bleeds without Lasix, it shouldn't be given the opportunity to be on an equal playing field with a horse that doesn't bleed. Really bad bleeders need to stop racing, and it is only a few horses that really bleed that much and because Lasix drains a horse, without Lasix horses will be able to come back and race more often, field size will actually increase, and I heard that bettors like bigger field size."

"Drugs are killing the game. Super trainers don't even train their horses anymore, they just inject the same drugs illegal immigrants use before they swim across the Gulf of Mexico and land on the shores of Florida and Louisiana. These guys have super endurance, you must have seen them swim on TV like I have. This is bad and must be stopped. It will be stopped."

"We will lower taxes on Americans, and abolishing taxes on racetrack winnings is a great way to start. Once again, the more money that is in the pockets of the gambler, the better off the industry will be in the long run. And I hate Jackpot bets, they are churn killers. My 50% tax will stop players from playing and then tracks will stop offering this silly wager and don't believe tracks who say that Jackpot bets create new players, that is Fake News!"

"With every state now allowing horse racing betting, handle will go up bigly on that alone. And we'll see more states start building racetracks. If Florida had a racetrack I'd be spending my weekends at the track rather than on the golf course, and now they might build one, maybe even two.

I also propose that the residing state of the gambler receives 1% of whatever is wagered by residents online, or 1% of what is wagered at tracks or OTBs. Lets face it, someone from South Carolina could be betting at a track in Pennsylvania but other than the holes in his jeans, how can you tell he is from South Carolina? On the internet it is different, you can tell. But some states are out of control on what they charge, Minnesota recently started charging and arm and a leg on their residents wagers, and now no betting company wants to take Minnesota residents except for illegal offshore bookmakers that help fund ISIS. This stops today."

"I'm an expert on Sweden. If it wasn't for the V75 the only thing they'd have going for them are their meatballs. Most of the blonde women, and I do love women, have left or want to leave because of the daily terrorist attacks. I'd like to sign an executive order that allows a few hundred thousand blonde women from Sweden to come into America as refugees but I was told I could never get it passed."

Horse Racing's Two Biggest Obstacles To Growth: Takeout and Drugs

I haven't been blogging much lately. I started off hoping to help the industry change for the better, but looking back at my past posts, I'm safe to say that nothing has changed. If anything it has been one small step forward, one big step back. When it comes to whether I blog or not, I'll quote Hillary Clinton: "what difference does it make?"

This has been a banner year for horse racing with the success of American Pharoah, yet horse racing handle is flat. Until there are visible winners, horse racing cannot attract new players to make for dying Horseplayers and other regulars who have decided to bet less. It is not that the game isn't great. It is. At least in theory. Daily Fantasy Sports simply offers a better bang for the buck when it comes to brain games for money. The rake makes it possible for their industry to get away with focusing on winners in commercials. There may or may not be a lot of long term winners, but the perception is everything. They can focus on WINNING. And guess what? It works:



This type of commercial would not work for horse racing. Horse racing has to focus on "the thrill" (entertainment) only. The problem is that horse racing is about 10% pure entertainment, 90% gambling, and the thrill when it comes to gambling is a) winning b) the ability to keep gambling. Two thing important to all gamblers, the ability to possibly be a long term winner, or at least, the ability to keep gambling without going to the well too frequently. Slots proves that the more you cash without going to the well too much, the more you will tend to come back and play again at a later date, despite losing almost every time you go. It works just as well for roulette and blackjack. The more money tracks take out of the collective Horseplayers hands each and every race, the less fun they will have, plain and simple, and the less likely they will go home, or get up the next day (if they are playing from home), believing the game is beatable.

Has the industry ever toyed with the idea of optimum takeout? 5 letters: NEVER. The concept doesn't seem to exist, thanks to the pie-shrinkers who rule the industry. Most of these pie shrinkers don't want to shrink the pie, but short term thinking and the just plain bad priorities make shrinking the pie inevitable.

The industry keeps tapping its Ruby Slippers together while closing their eyes, repeating "the game is 100% entertainment and people want to just bet on it." Seriously, how much money from those who may have wagered for the first time on American Pharoah in the Belmont is in the pools today, or yesterday, or will be tomorrow?

If horse racing were to have come along after Daily Fantasy Sports, they would enter the market with a takeout of around 8-10% for Win Place and Show, 12% for Exactors and Doubles, and maybe 14-15% for all other exotics tops.
Who knows, in a parallel universe or two or three, maybe that is what is happening right now, but not here on planet Earth.

DRUGS

Super trainers exist. There are only so many ways to train a horse, yet some trainers, even when they have strings at multiple tracks which means it can't possibly be due to superior horsemanship, especially if this special horse whisperer isn't even around, yet they win consistently at around 18% or more using their "special" routine. It is an insult to anyone's intelligence that these outfits aren't using chemicals or supplements that aren't being tested for. I also hate the excuse that 99% of drug tests come back negative. Pretty simple stuff, they are testing for a limited amount of substances, and there are ways to mask certain substances too.

I know this isn't politically correct to state at this time, but fixing the drug problem, and yes, it is a real issue, will only create perhaps a small handle bump from regular customers, but it won't create any newbies because the rate that regulars lose their money will not change by much.* *In theory, the backstretch money, lose a little less than outside money. I know the old argument is that backstretch money is dummy money, but really, how can it be. If you know a horse didn't eat up or was feeling kind of sluggish before a race, you are likely not to bet the horse and maybe likely to find something else in the race to bet, and what if you know
that a horse has turned the corner, or just had a shock wave treatment or just came out of a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, you may be able to get your ROI to .94 level (which, although won't make you money, it does take away some money and some potential future run ("gambling fix" money) from anyone who has a lower ROI).

Newbies will come and learn the game once there are visible winners. The game could be hay and oats with a 360 hour barn surveillance, and it wouldn't create an extra player, except perhaps through friends of smaller owners who might be in the game a bit more thanks to a higher ROI (because the ROI of drug trainers' outfits will decrease). With B and C racetracks racing less now, even that portal to growth is shutting down and may not swing to positive territory even if there was an equal playing field.

Whipping rules, which I'm all for, don't change handle totals at all.

The fact that fixing the drug problem may be irrelevant to handle, it still should be attempted.

Lasix or no Lasix? I've read and heard many pro and con arguments out there. I'm still learning. For example, by watching the NYRA conference on Youtube, one trainer mentioned that in the old days, they used to prevent bleeding by not allowing the horse to eat or drink 24 hours before the race (I've since heard that some trainers used up to a 72 hour time frame). And of course, the pro-Lasix people state this was more inhumane than using Lasix today, but when it comes to my Columbo instincts, I still have to ask, why did horses used to run twice as much in the 60's or 70's than today, and was it a more cruel backstretch back then? Is it Lasix or a combination of Lasix and all the other chemicals that are pumped into today's horses (It isn't a far cry to believe that the best trainers today are superior junior chemists or have a great junior chemist vet going for them)? Does it affect recovery time that much? Are horses weaker today than they were back then because of breeding horses prone to bleed or the use of well bred sires who retired early due to injury? Does the need to breed speedy 2 year olds to get quicker returns for the buyers the cause? You know, it is probably a combination of lots of things, but it wouldn't shock me that if Lasix was banned horses would be racing more often, fields would be fuller (maybe 5% would have to be retired, but the other 95% would be able to race 50% more times, maybe even greater than that).

With high takeouts, the use of non-detectable designer drugs, the slaps on the wrists given to cheaters who are caught, the use of shock therapy, and so on, the industry has proved it can't price itself and it can't regulate itself either. Something should be done. I use the word "should" be done versus "must" be done, because as we've seen, nothing might be done, and the industry can keep floating in a near purgatory state.

From a bettors standpoint, and I've stated this before: In a perfect world, there would be around 5-10 drugs and supplements (I don't think Cobalt should be on the OK list, for example) combined that can be legally administered. Anything else would be forbidden, and cheaters, when caught would be faced with a minimum 1 year suspension first offense, 3 year suspension second offense, and lifetime ban for a third offense. Vets would be just as liable.

As for any surgeries, shockwave treatments, hyberbaric treatments, and tappings, the public should know. How come we know if an NFL player stubs his toe on Tuesday night while getting out of bed to check on his baby, but Horseplayers are in the dark when comes to an outfit shelling out some good money to tap a joint?

And finally, I still find it perplexing that one can legally bet on Fantasy Sports online in almost every US State, yet the list of States where potential gamblers are shut out altogether from betting the ponies is much greater, and this includes the "free" State of Texas. Racing does not have its act together to even make an attempt to grow their customer base that way.

Tired Of Small Fields Anyone?

It is getting tougher and tougher to make a score at the track.  There are many reasons why, but number one is, without a doubt, the seemingly never ending parade of races with 4-7 betting interests in them.

Whether you make horizontal or vertical wagers, short fields limit value and limit how much you can win. Yet these races are subject to the exact same takeout (which varies from track to track) as races with double or sometimes triple the field size.

What makes things worse is with 10 cent and 20 cent superfectas (which generally have the highest takeouts) available in 7 and sometimes 6 or even 5 horse races,  Horseplayers unwittingly get sucked in because these bets offer the best payout prices despite the higher takeout.  The result is less churn, which means Horseplayers go broke quicker.  For example, an exactor pool that has $20,000 in it with a takeout of 20% returns $16,000 to the bettors collectively, but a superfecta with the same pool size and a 25% takeout, returns only $15,000.  The reality is that many $2 exactors payout around the same as a 20 cent super on average.

It seems that no matter which track you handicap these days, short fields are prevalent.  Horsemen like them, because there are less horses to beat.   But pool size suffers the shorter the field.

From a business perspective, it makes more sense to pay higher purses to horses that beat more rivals, and the more horses the more betting dollars, the more the track and horsemen receive from betting.  Maybe if tracks adopted this type of mentality, horsemen wouldn't shop around for short field races so much.  Maybe horses would race a little bit more as well because more participants would not get a check for just running around the track.

What I find most troubling about these short fields is that almost every short field race has at least one or two horses off over a month.  From a handicapping perspective, it makes for more of a guessing game, one that doesn't add value, but makes the race too unpredictable in light of a high takeout rate.  One needs to be right a lot more in shorter field size races because payoffs are smaller, and guessing if a horse was off due to soreness or because the trainer aimed for this race creates too many mixed results which destroy one's bankroll in a hurry.

I realize there is more going on when it comes to lower field size.  The recession in 2009 and the overall downturn of horse racing has knocked out the race horse population and the participants in the industry as well has reduced in size.

Field size has also been victimized by the backstretch drug culture.  Horses are too drained to race frequently, like they did in the 40's through the 70's.   Now horses only have a few races to get ready for a year, whether they run for 10,000 or in Stake Races.  It is more important that they are ready for those races, so many are fine tuned with the best legal and best non detectable drugs available.  And I can't stand the Lasix apologists.  It is blatantly obvious that horses have made less starts per year ever since Lasix was made legal.  It is also a known fact that Lasix drains most horses and significant weight fluctuations occur.

And then you have breeding.  Horses retiring at 3 to become sires.  Retired because of injuries or because they made it big at 3.  Oh, did I mention they were also part of the backstretch drug culture as well?  This leads to inferior horses being bred.  Immature horses who were better than other immature horses, or horses who were injury prone are responsible for siring most of the horses we bet on each day now.  Is it a wonder that they can only run effectively once a month?  But this is where the greed culture of breeders, bloodstock agents and pinhookers come into play.  It isn't about the good of the game to get a young horse to run a 10 second furlong to try to make it stand out in the sales ring.   And if buyers would just take a deep breath a look at the reality that spending loads of cash on a yearling is foolish (in the past 13 years, the most a winner of the Kentucky Derby sold for as a yearling was $60,000, in fact, 8 were homebreds)

For the good of the game, a quick simple rule.  A horse cannot go to the breeding shed until they hit 5 (I prefer 6, but 5 is realistic).  This will also give the public more of a chance to get to know good horses.  The longer their career, the more they become familiar to the mainstream public.   For example, the media will mention California Chrome's next race, and if he keeps winning, he'll keep getting mentioned, and if he were to stay on for another year, and kept being competitive, more potential fans and eventually long term Horseplayers may be created.

Also for the good of the game, a Triple Crown for 4 year olds and up should be created.  Lets have 3 one million dollar plus races starting in July and ending in August.  It can even be the same distances as the three year old Triple Crown events.  This should give incentive to owners to keep their horses going longer even if they put up a fight over the 5 year old minimum breeding shed age.  It may create horses that are bred for stamina and longevity, that the public can familiarize with, and not some shooting star that puts the smile on the face of a pinhooker.

Lasix: The Pros And The Cons

The Lasix debate is going strong right now as the Feds in the States are looking to ban race day drugs. The prevailing viewpoint is that drugs do not belong in athletes, and that competition should pit natural talent against natural talent.

Horse racing has always had a seedy side to it. From the use of cocaine at the turn of the last Century to the designer drugs of today, the idea of improving a horse's performance artificially to cash a bet or grab purse money is simply a reality in the game. The question is how prevalent it is.

From many a horseman's perspective, if it isn't on a banned list and/or it isn't tested for, it is legal. And stretching that a bit for some operations, if you can beat a test with little risk, why not go for it?

Horseplayers seem to be in favor of not only banning race day drugs but all performance enhancers.

I'm really not sure why the Feds got involved. They had to have been nudged. Who nudged them? Certainly not an HBPA groups. And why Lasix, and not other drugs that are much more potent even if taken a few days out?

One can Google search forever and still not find definitive results when it comes to concluding whether Lasix is needed or not. In Europe and Hong Kong and other jurisdictions, race day Lasix is not allowed, and reportedly most horses do not train on Lasix. However, there isn't much discussed about what they substitute, if anything, for Lasix, and what happens to most horses who are chronic bleeders. On the other side, most Horsemen in North America state emphatically that without Lasix, the percentage of horses who can not race anymore will be dramatically high.

PROS
1. Allegedly, around 5% of race horses most likely need Lasix in order to race. Again, this is a number that is speculated on. Prior to the legalization of Lasix, the amount of horses barred from racing was next to none. However, it is not known what percentage were retired or didn't make it to the races by choice.

2. It levels the playing field. Because Lasix is known to have other enhancement qualities other than preventing EIPH (for instance, it is a bronchodilator, which means it helps all horses breathe better). So, it just isn't fair that if a horse is a known bleeder that they should be the only horses to have the extra performance enhancements that Lasix gives a horse.
Another argument is that consistent use of Lasix causes less erratic form that could arise from heavy bleeding of a horse one race to mild bleeding the next race.
As a side note, when Lasix was first introduced, and only given to real bleeders, it turned out to be quite a handicapping angle. But now that virtually every horse in North America runs on Lasix, the first or second time angle means nothing.

3. If drugs are to be allowed, this is a cheap and powerful way to go.

4. The jury is out, but Lasix could have humane factors in reducing scar tissue by bleeders.

5. The controlled use of Lasix may prevent training outfits from experimenting and using other anti-bleeding medications that may even be more harmful to a horse's system than Lasix allegedly is.

CONS
1. It is a performance enhancer. Anything that potentially makes a horse run faster while having the substance in them versus not having the substance in them, in an enhancer. The "running to its potential" line is a pretty weak argument. It doesn't just help prevent bleeding, but also helps non bleeders breathe better, amongst other things as well.

2. It mask other drugs, and clouds tests. I know it, and you know it. Stop the nonsensical denial. Simply Google "Pass a marijuana test lasix"

Lasix: Take an 80 milligram dose of prescription diuretic lasix (furosemide). Prescription diuretics are the most potent. Some over the counter diuretics will color your urine blue and should be avoided. WARNING! -Diuretics can be harmful to people with kidney problems, pregnant women, and diabetics.-

Super Trainers are one of the biggest turn offs horse racing has to offer today. Not only for Horseplayers, but for honest Horsemen and as importantly owners and potential new owners. It is hard to get new blood in the game if you are consistently running for third money. Masking other performance enhancing drugs doesn't help the game at all. Outfits that experiment with drug concoctions leads to erratic performances, and this leads to lack of confidence from Horseplayers.

3. Lasix is a potent diuretic. The side effects are many. The fact that a horse needs an electrolyte jug after competition to replace vital fluids the horse lost from racing on Lasix is cause enough to question using the drug. It might even border on cruelty.

4. The North American breed is allegedly weaker because the best breeding candidates who have been successful on the track raced with Lasix. Would they still be running the same times without Lasix? Probably not in many cases because of the performance enhancement Lasix offers, whether the top horses were helped by bleeding less or breathing better, there is a good likelihood that a heredity weakness is being passed on today versus the pre-Lasix days. And there is the possibility that if Lasix wasn't used, we might see a whole different cast of top horses every year, probably running slightly slower final times collectively, but a much heartier group.

5. There is a correlation between horses starts per year and per life and Lasix usage over the past 15-20 years. Horse are making 2 less starts a year these days on average.
Whether it is a direct correlation, the jury is out again. It could be a combination of Lasix and training strategies, the higher use of other drugs (legal and illegal alike), and/or the the higher frequency of detailing (tapping of joints, etc.) that is being used by more elite and/or high percentage outfits (where horses have the kitchen sink put in them for every infrequent race).

6. Lasix is not used race day in jurisdictions outside Canada and the USA. They seem to get along fine without it. It wasn't used in North America prior to the 80's either, and horse racing seemed to get along fine without it.

7. The elimination of Lasix and other drugs would most likely make it cheaper to own horses (providing they don't really need Lasix to race). Horses may run relatively slower collectively by a few ticks, but that really isn't relevant at all. Cutting the costs of horse ownership would most likely lead to owners having bigger stables, and it would entice newbie owners to enter the game.


CONCLUSION

Horse racing would probably get along just fine if Lasix were banned on race day. However, Lasix seems to be the whipping boy of a more severe problem, and that is the other performance enhancing drugs and treatments (like EPO, DPO, synthetic venoms, and ITPP) that are being used by cheaters. Getting rid of race day Lasix is only a tiny step in leveling the playing field for bettors and honest horsemen.
Solving the problem requires making an exact list of treatments and allowable drugs, as well as severely fining anyone caught using drugs or treatments not on the list.


ADVERTISEMENT

Horse racing isn't about to lower takeout collectively anytime soon. At least most astute Horseplayers have some options:

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM offers Horseplayers industry high Player Reward Bonuses. No minimums. Start getting bonuses immediately.

SPECIAL BONUS OFFER TO NEW MEMBERS AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM

BET $80 GET $40 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT

Wager at least $80 in total, win or lose, and you will get $40 deposited into your account. You will also start receiving industry high Player Reward Bonuses daily as soon as you start wagering. To earn the $40 Bonus you must wager at least $80 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.

CLICK TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT


Why Horseplayersbet.com?:

* Industry High Player Reward Bonuses added to your account daily
* User friendly betting interface makes wagering easy
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS
* FREE RACE REPLAYS
* Wager Online or by Phone
* Great customer service
* 100% Parimutuel
* Bet cancellation capabilities
* No membership or wagering fees
* Green Dot & PINpocket fees rebated (deposits of $120 or more)
* No fees on debit/credit card deposits by phone of $100 or more
* Online credit card funding (4.5% fee rebated on deposits of $100 or more)

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, "WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST." SIGN UP TODAY AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING US BASED ADWS

Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses, or lose. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.

Axe Falls On Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corp.

The OLG board resigned and CEO Kelly McDougald was fired with cause.
There has to be much more to these firings than expense filings for golf memberships, pen refills, or weight loss clinics by OLG execs. And no, it can't be because of giving out a Mercedes Benz during Ontario's auto crisis as a prize, as a lottery prize either. And I don't buy it being because of the mistakes made over ticket misprints or slot machine glitches.

Most likely, we will find out more. I expect there to be many non tendered contracts that have been awarded through McDougald's short reign as being a major part of the firing, but I am speculating. The practice of handing out non tendered contracts usually has something to do with nepotism or under the table payoffs or pay back for favours done or expected to be done in the near future. This is something the government is supposed to frown upon and take seriously as it wrecks public confidence, and perhaps that is what is going on here.

Moving forward, it is hard to say how this will impact the Racinos in Ontario. The old OLG regime was apparently tough to deal with, and the OLG may have been partly responsible for the lack of growth in the industry over the last few years.

They also seem to have forgot why casinos were placed at racetracks in the first place: to help subsidize the racing industry in Ontario. For example, it seemed like an impossibility for Fort Erie to get a bigger percentage of casino revenues in order to help its survival under McDougald's regime. I kept hearing that the OLG does not care about horse racing, that it is just a necessary evil.

Maybe the new board and leader will be more racetrack friendly. I know the OLG needs some positive press, and keeping jobs is a must, so they can't afford for Fort Erie racetrack to close. Creating jobs would also be something that would give them some positive news, and I expect the new regime to do their best to fast track the creation of the proposed new Racino in Belleville.

Now if only we can see the same type of house cleaning at Woodbine Entertainment, life for the Ontario gambler, and the industry as a whole, would improve immensely.

Is it just me, or does Kelly McDougald look like Sarah Palin without a makeover?


I think it was a great thing to see Palin gone (not a fan, sorry conservative readers), and it might just be a good thing that McDougald is gone now too.


Ontario Racing Commission Hands Out Large Fine For Violation Of Archaic Rule

The Ontario Racing Commission has released details pertaining to the penalties doled out earlier today to Kerry and Shirley House, the owners of this year’s Gold Cup & Saucer winner, All The Weapons.

As outlined earlier today, each of the owners were fined $17,343.50 for violating ORC rule 15:09a, which stipulates:

15.09. A claimed horse, regard less of ownership:

(a) shall race only at a track or tracks in the Province of Ontario for the next 60 days, except where such a horse had been nominated to participate in an added money event before it was claimed, or unless the track where the horse was claimed is closing for more than 30 days. If the track where the horse was claimed closes for more than 30 days, the horse is released from the requirements of 15.09 (a).

***********************************************
The horse gets claimed in Ontario, and the new owners, who were probably not aware of the rules to begin with, entered the horse in a Stake series in PEI.

The rule has been in place for years to help protect our racing population. This made more sense when Ontario didn't offer some of the best purses in North America, but now the rule needs to be thrown away.

It was wrong to begin with, because it interferes with free enterprise, but especially now with higher purses available, the rule makes no sense, and it only takes away options for new owners, which has could have a negative affect on the amount of horse owners and potential horse owners in the future.

Yes, the House's broke the rules (and willfully too it appears), and they deserve the fine, but this rule needs to be taken out of the books going forward.


Goodbye Whip, Hello Crop
The ORC is just stuck in the stone ages, they do have their progressive moments. Today is the first day that the soft cushion crop is mandatory for jockeys to use. Jennifer Morrison's article in the Star explains things a lot better than I can.

I wonder who will be the first jockey to get fined under the new urging rule.



Steven Crist: More Questions Than Answers In Lasix Debate
Excellent read. But whether Lasix is allowed or not, it really doesn't matter, as long as takeout is high. Racing's woes won't be fixed by cleaning up their tarnished image in regards to Lasix masking other drugs.

I'll also add that if racing wasn't so dysfunctional in North America, Lasix would have no place in the game except during workouts.

Don't shoot the messenger.


Finally, the other Canadian blogger who really gets it has written an excellent piece over at the HANA blog on the fact that carnivals are light years ahead of the racing industry when it comes to understanding the customer.