AFTER THE filly Eight Belles broke down and was euthanized at the Kentucky Derby, the thoroughbred racing industry, spurred on by Congress, entered into a public debate about practices that need to be changed.
Some of the people who care most about horses and the sport testified earlier this month before a US House subcommittee, calling for a single governing body for racing and strict uniform rules on medication. These are two major changes that need to be made, and can be.
There will be resistance to both. State racing authorities will not want to surrender their rule-making powers to a national racing commission like those that have endowed professional football, baseball, and basketball with organizational coherence and commercial success. Some trainers and vets will want to go on conducting what Hall of Fame trainer Jack Van Berg denounced in his testimony as "pharmaceutical warfare."
The first task of a national racing commission should be to enforce a stringent ban on all performance-enhancing, race-day medications. At present, most states permit the anti-bleeding diuretic furosemide, commonly known as Lasix, and some allow the painkiller phenylbutazone, or bute. At the June 19 hearing, Jess Jackson, the owner of 2007 horse of the year, Curlin, was admirably forceful in demanding a policy of "zero tolerance."
Painkillers such as bute endanger horses by enabling them to race with injuries that should be treated with rest and recuperation. Lasix does not stop all bleeding in the lungs. In the days before Lasix was permitted, horses with bleeding problems were not welcome in the breeding shed.
Horsemen need to return to the old-timers' prescription of "oats, hay, and water." Racing is a beautiful sport when a Seabiscuit is matched against a War Admiral, but not when the chemical brews of one veterinarian are matched against the potions of another.
