WHICH WAY DID THEY GO? 11/3/22

LATEST HISA REPORT -“Authority officials have been clear that it is their intention to penalize owners of racehorses for riders going over the hit limit, in part because they believe owners were often offering to pay a rider's fine for a whip rule violation under the previous state-by-state system. This, they believe, disincentivizes riders from following regulations since it undercuts the penalty to them. The hope with the purse redistribution is that owners will urge riders to stay in line with the rules.”key”.??(This is as about absurd as the mentality that produced it!}

Responsibility rules in horse racing have always been to place the onus (which is historically correct) mainly, on the trainer.??With the preceding statement made above, we are now apprised of the legal methodologies behind the HISA information regulations.??In order to buffer lawsuits in advance of infractions, the owner and jockey become the focal points in the running of the contest, not the trainer.??The portability of these important rules & regs seem to now be ambiguous, placing owners into a situation where they are/were, never equipped professionally, legally or otherwise to deal with drug, whip or any other more intricate rules of the game and will now place the owner into the CEO category of the business, in the minds of lawyers. But unlike owners, don’t trainers take tests; discuss with veterinarians; estimate the vagaries of the day to day responsibilities, legalities and professionalization concerning the running of a horse race through their limited summation.??Are lawyers now running and re-establishing the system???Apparently so.??The several sets of punishments have now reached an area of ambivalence, incorporating responsibilities that have no business being divvied up between thousands of owners located throughout the globe; syndicated participants with no clue as to the legal responsibilities in an ownership capacity relative to the sport, other than paying the bill.??Is there a test for this responsibility other than purchasing a racehorse???The lawyers, in this case, including Ms Lazarus, have perhaps given us a new portability of decision-making within the sport of horse racing and on the eve of America’s premium presentation…the Breeders’ Cup!??Perhaps we should interview Adolfo Birch and get his version???How about the “social licensing”, the new buzzword and artificial cliché we seem to want to “sport” throughout the “media”???Shouldn’t we have their input in all of this, even if they do not (as is the experience of most of the HISA folks} have any knowledge of these new contrived “toys” of?legal meaningfulness???

Doesn’t it make you want to watch football, a game filled with socially acceptable (“macho & bravado) injuries and pseudo-calisthenics that are re-purposed for television.??How do we equate and catch up with?that?social-licensing?

This is really going to be fun to watch!??“Is It one lump or two” in America???What-what old chap? Don’t worry, your bet is protected.??“Oh, I thought that this feigned controversy was about the horses; the real subject matter?”??“Not really!??It’s about false narratives and meddling, old boy! The horses won’t know the difference if it is 7 strikes in England, Ireland & France and 6 strikes in America and none in Sweden! But if it is an emergency or if deemed safety…maybe more strikes will be permissible! Who on the ground is equipped to decide?

The Americans love it old boy!??Social media you know!”

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????-30-