HORSE RACING CONTROVERSY & RULES OF THE GAME 10/9/21

For those horse racing-minded folks who read the Paulick Report, one of the selected subjects delved into by Ray, Natalie Voss and attorney Bob Heberinger on Friday is race course private property rights...and with quite a bit of naivete.??Race Course rulings have been imposed on a variety of prominent and infamous trainers of racehorses of late and are not an anomaly.??While the PR discussion is mildly surprising as industry mandated, racecourse stall applications registration forms, fines, suspensions have been utilized back into the nineteen thirties, forties and fifties. When the first the advent of State mandated “racing commissions’ and resulting appointments of “chief-stewards” became a joke in so many jurisdictions over many years, those appointments to officiating often included somewhat “cushy-political” payoffs, including Governors’ chauffeurs and ridiculous selections that were seriously injurious to the sport and the participating public.??Race course managements and licensees become incensed by the inadequacies of inferior government or any amateur officiating.??To some degree they continue in the sport today although many appointments now have been drawn from within established track-created officialdom and practical experience. Some of our history’s most prominent and effective track stewards as Marshall Cassidy, Keene Dangerfield, Myron Davies, Kenny Noe and Manny Gilman just to mention a few, were exemplary, highly respected and instilled a “fear-factor” that warded off the “evil spirits” ahead of the “evil deeds” and the contemplation of such. For instance, seriously deleterious issues such as multiple uncoupled entries trained by the same trainer who openly delegates the euphemized “rabbit” connotation; and wagered upon by the unknowing, and disadvantaged wagering public have became issues during the last two years.??And another; the discrediting of historical and highly effective but innocuous whip-use in an attempt to pander to a portion of hypothetical spectators based on biased polls and innuendo.??These are unprofessional policies and rulings self-inflicted on professional and globally accepted norms.??They are damaging to the sport!??(to be continued)