Breeders' Cup Decisions

Bravo to the Board of Directors of the Breeders' Cup Ltd., for taking a zero tolerance stand on the use of anabolic steroids in either the championship races to be held at Santa Anita in October or in those stakes races that are part of the Breeders' Cup Challenge series.

As reported in the Thoroughbred Times, "Trainers of horses that test positive for anabolic steroids at this year's Breeders' Cup World Championships at Santa Anita Park will face a one-year suspension from the event," and trainers who "violate steroid regulations three times will face a lifetime ban from participating" in what has become one of the sport's premier events.

In addition, Breeders' Cup, Ltd. will no longer fund purses for Breeders' Cup Challenge races or award these coveted races to tracks that have not adopted Racing Commissioners International model rules on steroids. All international races that have already been run in the Challenge series have followed these rules, which ban the use of steroids.

Kudos to Breeders Cup Chairman, William S. Farish, Jr. for taking such a public and persuasive stand--literally putting the money where his mouth is. "The Breeders' Cup board believes it's crucial that we take a leadership role in eliminating anabolic steroids from our sport," Farish said. "We encourage each race track and racing jurisdiction to move swiftly in enacting these much-needed regulations."

Readers may remember that Roy Jackson was recently elected to the Board of Directors of The Breeders' Cup. Certainly this savvy move is one example of how the "powers that be" in the sport do indeed have influence from within the industry to change the way the game is played. In a recent Bloodhorse editorial, Editor-In-Chief Dan Liebman suggests another tactic. The American Graded Stakes Committee, he argues, has equal leverage in eliminating the use of drugs by tying the coveted "grade" rankings to a track's ability to meet certain medication guidelines.

"Should a track decide it does not wish to comply, the result is simple: the stakes at that track--all of them--are ineligible to be considered for grading by the committee until such time as the track agrees to comply," he writes.

Both of these moves use the power of governance systems already in place to regulate certain conditions within the industry and demonstrate legitimate concern for the horses that compete. Not only do they demonstrate the level of concern among insiders that currently exists with regard to the future of the sport, they demonstrate to Congress, that self-policing is indeed possible.

Is is too little too late? I'm not sure, but it is certainly a breath of fresh air.