Alex Brown has an interesting post on the Paulick Report about the "dark side" of the recent decisions by racetracks such as Suffolk Downs to adopt a policy of zero tolerance for horse slaughter. "On the surface, this policy sounds excellent," he writes, especially when combined with retirement and rescue facilities currently in existence.
But, he wonders, since these facilities are already overcrowded, will these zero tolerance stances by racetracks merely encourage the trainers who are contemplating selling their no-longer performing thoroughbred to kill buyers, to go "underground" and continue the practice? "Rather than go to a public auction like New Holland, where they can be seen by private buyers and horse resuces, they go directly to kill buyer feedlots and kill pens," he hypothesizes. "Fewer racehorses may enter the slaughter pipeline, but more may be ultimately slaughtered."
It is an interesting stance and one that is worth contemplating. Brown's theory certainly played out in the Prohibition Era--banned liquor emerged underground. It makes you wonder, of course, if racing adopted a zero tolerance stance toward drugs, would they follow suit? We all know stories of human athletes who "push the envelope" with drugs they try to hide (look no farther than Floyd Landis who still claims innocence). Are we to assume that horse trainers would do the same thing? Some would and some wouldn't.
The larger question is if a zero tolerance policy merely drives the practice underground, than what public stance works? Brown advocates for a zero tolerance policy combined with additional resources to house "retired" racehorses. Perhaps some of a racetracks' purse monies should be diverted for this purpose (ideally each track would have their own retirement facility), but I can't see some tracks being able to support such a notion when their purses are already small.
The answer seem to be a collective realization of the problem as well a collaborative solution among all parties that participate in horse racing; owners, trainers and race track management. Surely it is the least they can do for the animals that provide their livelihood.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sure, if they ban drugs, many trainers will "push the envelope" with drugs they try to hide.
But then all that means is the the enforcement will have to become more aggressive and the penalties for violations more severe.
This year,s Tour de France provides the example. Those folks didn't screw around. When a rider was suspected of doping, they went in full force and sent the lot of them packing.
Was there still doping? Sure, but over time, there will be less and less of it, until the entire current crop of riders are replaced by a younger crowd that doesn't depend on chemistry for performance.
TvNB
Post a Comment