JC / Railbird

Late Scratch

Settling in late to watch today’s house hearing on horse racing and catch Randy Moss saying Thomas Jefferson used to keep a stable of racehorses on the White House grounds. Really? That’s an interesting historical tidbit. [Actually, it was Andrew Jackson, who not only kept thoroughbreds on the grounds, but entered runners in the name of his nephew and private secretary Andrew J. Donelson.]
The big news this morning is that Rick Dutrow is a late scratch from the witness list, a change Blinkers Off alerted us to last night. According to the Associated Press, the trainer has been feeling ill since the Belmont (I bet):

“I would go in a minute, but I just don’t feel well.” Dutrow said in a telephone interview. “To go down there when I’m not on top of my game would not be right.”

Ray Paulick, live blogging from the packed hearing room, reported earlier this morning that subcommittee staff were claiming Dutrow didn’t call to say he’d be a no-show, but Joe Drape whispered to Paulick not long after, “They lie … I know for a fact Dutrow called Whitfield’s office.”
Jess Jackson is up now and talking about Curlin running without drugs — “Not that he didn’t in the past, but we changed that, when we went to Dubai.” You know, this hearing isn’t going to be so dry after all …
11:30 am: First panel concludes without one mention of horseplayers and racing fans as stakeholders in this game or of the $15 billion we push through in handle annually.*
1:25 pm: Checking in on the second panel, see NTRA president Alex Waldrop looking tense, his eyes darting about, while congressman Ed Whitfield is saying, “I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the government to set minimum standards.” That would seem to be the conclusion to which much of today’s testimony and questioning leads, but you don’t have to be Alan “Self-Regulation” Marzelli to wonder if that would truly be the best outcome …
* More on this in the comments section of the Paulick Report’s live blog of the hearing. I found myself feeling irked about the oversight after listening to Jess Jackson declare that owners were “the lifeblood” of the industry (not to knock the importance of owners — this sport couldn’t go on without them any more than it could go on without bettors) and then hearing every group but the fans named as stakeholders in the industry in response to one of the representative’s questions. As the passage of the NY OTB bill this week showed, players pay when they get overlooked. The subject today may officially have been horse safety, but what the committee was really talking about was industry regulation via the IHA and I believe players deserve representation in any discussion of that matter, before someone comes up with a brilliant idea like slapping a 1% surchage on every off-track/simulcast wager made so as to pay for a national commission or drug-testing laboratory. Waldrop at least gave a nod to players in his statement — “The last thing this industry needs is another layer of bureaucracy funded by yet another tax on our long-suffering customers” — for which I extend my appreciation.
** Also, my appreciation to Randy Moss, whose written testimony mentions the bettors. Moss, at least in print, was there partly to represent the fans.


9 Comments

Another whisper from Joe Drape … Randy Moss was wrong. It was Jackson who kept a stable of horses at the White House, not Jefferson. I didn’t realize how smart Drape is!

Posted by Ray Paulick on June 19, 2008 @ 12:43 pm

That makes so much more sense, since Jackson was a breeder, and I couldn’t recall any Jefferson connection to thoroughbreds. My thanks to Drape for the correction.

Posted by Jessica on June 19, 2008 @ 12:54 pm

I, being one, sympathize with the plight of the always-forgotten horseplayer, but, truly, Jessica, I believe the ones that make up a sizable portion of your alliance might want to contact the office of Ed Whitfield and get a little representation on the next panel. From what I can tell, he’s a square guy and means well. I would be surprised if he was adverse to the bettor’s voice being a part of the dialogue. When panels are called to Congress, leaders are chosen. Horseplayers have no leader, as far as I know. Designate one. Designate yourself. You’ve got to make noise to be heard.

Posted by John S. on June 19, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

John S…This hearing wasn’t about getting the points of view of all segments of the industry (i.e., where were the racetracks, or the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium). It was about the leaders of the subcommittee getting across their agenda and hand-picking people who would say things to help magnify the need for that agenda. It was a two-act play, wonderfully scripted….not an information gathering drill.
I’m not saying that’s how it should have done, but that’s what happened.

Posted by Ray Paulick on June 19, 2008 @ 7:59 pm

The committee does not care about horseplayers and would certainly never seek the opinion or representation of one at a congressional hearing.
Congress sees us as compulsive gambling addicts, bums and losers who are important only for fueling the handle at racetracks so that those tracks can send more money to government coffers.
The ADW problem is very near and dear to my heart since I live in Green Bay, 3 hours from the nearest Thoroughbred track. If not for ADW, my money would never see a racetrack handle. I have no problem watching a horse race without betting on it, but anyone who has made a $2 wager on a lucky number or favorite saddle cloth color knows how much more exciting an insignificant $2 bet makes that race. With rising takeouts and all the ADW nonsense, I’m beginning to wonder if its really all worth it anymore…

Posted by Matt on June 19, 2008 @ 9:28 pm

Ray, to me, that’s half right. You couldn’t have had everyone necessary there, now, could you? You couldn’t have a circus. I spoke with Ed Whitfield this evening and pointed out the trainers weren’t at all representative. I, however, personally, saw nothing wrong with this event, other than it was a surface-scratcher. Yes, it was about agenda, but what isn’t about agenda? Except in New York racing, agenda can sometimes mean forward motion. I hope you’re not implying that I am naieve. I grew up watching three-card monty in Times Square pre-Disney Store. I often (but not always) know when the fix is in. If you want honest inquiry in your so-called representative democracy, you’ve got to push for it. The Humane Society was there. Peta was there. Christ, the Jacksons were there. These are people making their points outside of the core voices. Horseplayers, my point was, can be vocal, too, but they’ve got to visualize themselves as players in the arena where decisions are made rather than just impotent voices crying on the outside. Good seeing you today — John Scheinman

Posted by John S. on June 19, 2008 @ 9:38 pm

John, your comments echo a conversation I’ve been carrying on with Dana of GbG and a couple others. We’ve got a little project in the works doing much of what you’re advocating …

Posted by Jessica on June 20, 2008 @ 7:44 am

Actually, we’ve got a couple of projects in the works :)

Posted by dana on June 20, 2008 @ 11:50 am

Anticipation is running rampant!

Posted by John S. on June 20, 2008 @ 6:09 pm