Data Indicates the Reforms Will Fail

[TJ]

The RMTC, RCI and NTRA are working in concert to organize the national racing reforms. The Jockey Club isn't involved with it. On Nov. 21, the Subcommittee on Commerce Manufacturing and Trade of the Energy Commerce Committee (subcommittee) convened a hearing on the horse racing and safety integrity act of 2013, the actual bill, H.R.2012 was put forth by Rep. Pitts. In response to this, the NTRA sent this letter to the chairman and ranking member of the committee to update the committee on recent efforts by the industry to enhance the safety and integrity of the sport. Note one additional state, California has been added to the eight states of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions ready to go the first of the new year. In addition they expected, at the time of this writing, at least another 11 states working to adopt the reforms, according to the "Reform Adoption Timeline". The letter further states they are confident that by this time next year, the overwhelming majority of horse racing in the US will be conducted in accordance with the new reforms.
This is in accordance with their timeline...which is not a deadline to have the reforms implemented. Reform Adoption Timeline: Every jurisdiction in the United States that conducts pari-mutuel horse racing is urged to fully and uniformly adopt each of the Reforms without amendment or substantive modification by January 1, 2014, or as soon thereafter as practicable given any legal or procedural limits on adoption or implementation in individual jurisdictions. This takes time to accomplish...what is so hard to understand about that? To recap, 9 states are good to go Jan 1st. This is the latest up to date info on the state of the current reforms....and this letter is more then a month old. The dialogue is open between the other states in the industry and will continue to evolve into full nationwide implementation of all 4 parts of the reforms.
Read the letter below, this is the actual up to date count....since the writing of this letter, California is on board and will implement by the 1/1/14 timeline. Others will be implementing the reforms as soon as possible under the rules of implementation in their state. TJ
http://www.ntra.com/media/8342737/13112 ... mittee.pdf

[hpkingjr]

The RMTC, RCI and NTRA are working in concert to organize the national racing reforms. The Jockey Club isn't involved with it. On Nov. 21, the Subcommittee on Commerce Manufacturing and Trade of the Energy Commerce Committee (subcommittee) convened a hearing on the horse racing and safety integrity act of 2013, the actual bill, H.R.2012 was put forth by Rep. Pitts. In response to this, the NTRA sent this letter to the chairman and ranking member of the committee to update the committee on recent efforts by the industry to enhance the safety and integrity of the sport. Note one additional state, California has been added to the eight states of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions ready to go the first of the new year. In addition they expected, at the time of this writing, at least another 11 states working to adopt the reforms, according to the "Reform Adoption Timeline". The letter further states they are confident that by this time next year, the overwhelming majority of horse racing in the US will be conducted in accordance with the new reforms.

Thanks so much TJ. This is on point and helpful. Happy Hollidays to all.
This is in accordance with their timeline...which is not a deadline to have the reforms implemented. Reform Adoption Timeline: Every jurisdiction in the United States that conducts pari-mutuel horse racing is urged to fully and uniformly adopt each of the Reforms without amendment or substantive modification by January 1, 2014, or as soon thereafter as practicable given any legal or procedural limits on adoption or implementation in individual jurisdictions. This takes time to accomplish...what is so hard to understand about that? To recap, 9 states are good to go Jan 1st. This is the latest up to date info on the state of the current reforms....and this letter is more then a month old. The dialogue is open between the other states in the industry and will continue to evolve into full nationwide implementation of all 4 parts of the reforms.
Read the letter below, this is the actual up to date count....since the writing of this letter, California is on board and will implement by the 1/1/14 timeline. Others will be implementing the reforms as soon as possible under the rules of implementation in their state. TJ
http://www.ntra.com/media/8342737/13112 ... mittee.pdf

Thanks so much TJ. This is on point, current and helpful. Happy Holidays to all.

[pfrsue]

I looked at the graphs that the OP posted about in the first post. I couldn't find the word "disapprove" anywhere. I see a lot of work in progress, however.

[Pan Zareta]

The RMTC, RCI and NTRA are working in concert to organize the national racing reforms. The Jockey Club isn't involved with it.

TJ, the website linked by the OP (horseracingreform.org) where status of the reforms is reported on a state-by-state basis (and, as pfrsue points out, the term "disapproved" is not used there), is a joint venture of TOBA and the JC (ref. news release 24 Apr 2013). It's hardly fair to say that the JC "isn't involved" with this. Passage of the reforms as finally drafted was strongly recommended at the 2013 Round Table even though the reforms do not incorporate the JC recommendation of alignment with other racing nations that prohibit the use of furosemide on race day" (JC RRMR 12 Aug 2012).

On that subject (furosemide), please accept a belated "thank you" for your informative reply to remarks I posted earlier this month in another 'Racing' thread. In regard to the etiology of EIPH it would be disingenuous of me to deny that there is a strong environmental component to the condition. Otoh, it seems naive to deny that genetic factors are dictating the variable severity exhibited among horses trained and maintained under the same or highly similar conditions. I have to disagree that the current or proposed North American models for furosemide use are in the best interests of the horses or in the best long term interests of the entire industry here. Nonetheless, the proposed reforms are a vast improvement and I hope all racing states will get on board. Again, just my $.02 (and apologies for going somewhat OT).

[BenB]

Facts about EIPH, partially inherited, stress related, (fast and lots of timed workouts, racing in an bunch of horses and not place to go. Hot wweather and high moisture. Transport and strange stabling each of them are just an part.

In extremely bad cases just galopping will be enough.

The main, high heart rate, high breathening rate and an disfunctions from the tiny lungvessels in responding the breathening rate.

The said advantage from lasix, lowering weight, thus lowering heart and breathening rate, are simply removed when the horse is overexercisted above it,s natural ability and conformation and or when damage is already there.

Keeping an nerveous train wreck gooiing will not work with lasix.

Putting rigoursly training work on them will not fit either.

[TJ]

The RMTC, RCI and NTRA are working in concert to organize the national racing reforms. The Jockey Club isn't involved with it.

TJ, the website linked by the OP (horseracingreform.org) where status of the reforms is reported on a state-by-state basis (and, as pfrsue points out, the term "disapproved" is not used there), is a joint venture of TOBA and the JC (ref. news release 24 Apr 2013). It's hardly fair to say that the JC "isn't involved" with this. Passage of the reforms as finally drafted was strongly recommended at the 2013 Round Table even though the reforms do not incorporate the JC recommendation of alignment with other racing nations that prohibit the use of furosemide on race day" (JC RRMR 12 Aug 2012).

On that subject (furosemide), please accept a belated "thank you" for your informative reply to remarks I posted earlier this month in another 'Racing' thread. In regard to the etiology of EIPH it would be disingenuous of me to deny that there is a strong environmental component to the condition. Otoh, it seems naive to deny that genetic factors are dictating the variable severity exhibited among horses trained and maintained under the same or highly similar conditions. I have to disagree that the current or proposed North American models for furosemide use are in the best interests of the horses or in the best long term interests of the entire industry here. Nonetheless, the proposed reforms are a vast improvement and I hope all racing states will get on board. Again, just my $.02 (and apologies for going somewhat OT).

Hi Pan,
In my reference to the JC, I may have been misunderstood. They are not involved with the movement of the new reforms but have played a part as many other groups have. The 3 groups I mentioned are front and center in organizing these reforms. Of course the various horseman organizations and groups are meeting to discuss these reforms, TOBA being one of them. The JC has nothing to do with implementing the current change occurring in the industry. Their main responsibility is maintaining the breed registry and to maintain the National Stud Book. Though they do fund various research programs regarding drugs, medications etc and of course the JC Round Table meetings, which certainly contributed to the change. Yet, they have no ability to unify, enforce or change any of these rules concerning drug reform or the rules of racing. That belongs to the RCI....which as I said is working in concert with the RMTC and NTRA to get the word out and to bring the states together in this massive effort of needed reforms. Concerning Lasix, I would be glad to discuss that in the thread we did before, if you don't mind. Then again it might be too late, I see Ben is all ready going off with a lasix post and taking away from the topic we are talking about. TJ

[Whirlaway]

I looked at the graphs that the OP posted about in the first post. I couldn't find the word "disapprove" anywhere. I see a lot of work in progress, however.

Your point is well taken.

The data compiled by the Jockey Club / TOBA shows four categories: Rules passed; In adoption Process; Under Discussion 2013; Uncommitted. I divided the data into two categories: Approved and Disapproved. Some have objected to this division, particularly with the use of the term “disapproved,” and I acknowledge their dissent. I revisited the data and have found an objective division based upon the data: States that have or have not passed the particular Reform. The data:

Exhibit A: Not passed: 72%; Passed: 28% - Only 8 states have passed this Reform
Exhibit B: Not passed: 59%; Passed: 41% - Only 12 states have passed this Reform
Exhibit C: Not passed: 86%: Passed: 14% - Only 4 labs has received full accreditation
Exhibit D: Not passed: 86%: Passed: 14% - Only 4 states have passed this Reform

Keep in mind the reforms have been in place for many months. Exhibit A, was adopted April 2, 2013; Exhibit D was adopted in the month of July; I haven’t determined a specific adoption date for Exhibits B and C but I figure they were adopted with Exhibit A. Nevertheless, only one state has adopted all reforms over this period of time.

All things considered, I stand behind the title of this thread: The Data Indicates the Reforms Will Fail.

[BenB]

I really do hope that the race reforms rules will be in charge at all jurisdictions around the US at the end of 2014. But there is no enforcement on it to get Jurisdictions that do not want these regulations.

So it might be the rules reforms and get the help from the fed,s from the enforcement part.

[pfrsue]

I looked at the graphs that the OP posted about in the first post. I couldn't find the word "disapprove" anywhere. I see a lot of work in progress, however.

Your point is well taken....

The data compiled by the Jockey Club / TOBA shows four categories: Rules passed; In adoption Process; Under Discussion 2013; Uncommitted. I divided the data into two categories: Approved and Disapproved. Some have objected to this division, particularly with the use of the term “disapproved,” and I acknowledge their dissent. I revisited the data and have found an objective division based upon the data: States that have or have not passed the particular Reform.

All things considered, I stand behind the title of this thread: The Data Indicates the Reforms Will Fail.

Reassigning four specific categories (none of which state that the proposed rules were disapproved) into two possible conclusions (approved/disapproved) is misleading and inaccurate. Rephrasing into passed/not passed doesn't make it any more accurate. Passed/Not Passed Yet might be more acceptable, but still doesn't acknowledge the progress being made.

The fact that you chose to manipulate the statistics to your own ends, deliberately spin-doctoring states that are still in the process of discussing or implementing the changes into the broad "disapprove/not passed" category does nothing to support your argument. Objective? You must be kidding.

[Whirlaway]

I looked at the graphs that the OP posted about in the first post. I couldn't find the word "disapprove" anywhere. I see a lot of work in progress, however.

Your point is well taken....

The data compiled by the Jockey Club / TOBA shows four categories: Rules passed; In adoption Process; Under Discussion 2013; Uncommitted. I divided the data into two categories: Approved and Disapproved. Some have objected to this division, particularly with the use of the term “disapproved,” and I acknowledge their dissent. I revisited the data and have found an objective division based upon the data: States that have or have not passed the particular Reform.

All things considered, I stand behind the title of this thread: The Data Indicates the Reforms Will Fail.

Reassigning four specific categories (none of which state that the proposed rules were disapproved) into two possible conclusions (approved/disapproved) is misleading and inaccurate. Rephrasing into passed/not passed doesn't make it any more accurate. Passed/Not Passed Yet might be more acceptable, but still doesn't acknowledge the progress being made.

The fact that you chose to manipulate the statistics to your own ends, deliberately spin-doctoring states that are still in the process of discussing or implementing the changes into the broad "disapprove/not passed" category does nothing to support your argument. Objective? You must be kidding.

As you can tell, I'm not a very good spin doctor. However the not passed / passed is accurate - if it is not so, please prove otherwise. Whether you think it is "acceptable" or not doesn't change the data, the data stands.

Please explain how you think only one state passing the reforms since the beginning of the year is progress. You must be kidding !

[TJ]

Keep in mind the reforms have been in place for many months. Exhibit A, was adopted April 2, 2013; Exhibit D was adopted in the month of July; I haven’t determined a specific adoption date for Exhibits B and C but I figure they were adopted with Exhibit A. Nevertheless, only one state has adopted all reforms over this period of time.

All things considered, I stand behind the title of this thread: The Data Indicates the Reforms Will Fail.

I tend to agree with the "NTRA's Assessment" letter to the Committee http://www.ntra.com/media/8342737/13112 ... mittee.pdf rather then the "whirlaway assessment" thread indicating that the reforms will fail from your internet study. It's a bit naive to think these major racing reforms will happen in a few months time nationwide. The only reason these reforms have not yet been implemented, is because of the individual states judicial process of drafting changes to existing state law. They don't walk in there and change it with a stroke of the pen. This is the reason why the RMTC asked for a reform adoption timeline and not a deadline: Reform Adoption Timeline: Every jurisdiction in the United States that conducts pari-mutuel horse racing is urged to fully and uniformly adopt each of the Reforms without amendment or substantive modification by January 1, 2014, or as soon thereafter as practicable given any legal or procedural limits on adoption or implementation in individual jurisdictions.
That is because those involved in trying to unite all these states, are well aware of the time it takes for the states to make these changes into law. Then you have to be there at the right time as these changes are not done all year long, then hope they are in session and not in recess which is most of the time:>) Then get in line (the state calendar) because there are a number of other bills, laws, amendments in front of racing all ready on their to do list. This is why it takes such a long time, it has nothing to do with that state not wanting to implement these reforms. The only states that will not go along with these reforms, are those states where the USTA has the greatest involvement....this group wants to administer clenbuterol 3 days out and inject cold steel full of corticosteroids into hot joints every week.....good luck trying to get these reforms passed there. Every TB venue will go along with these changes and implement them as far as financially possible, within that states budget. Since these states have a financial interest from the revenue racing provides their state. TJ

[pfrsue]

From the site the OP is using as a basis for his/her theory that the reforms will fail:

Out of 29 States:

“Phase 1 - Two category drug classification system: Controlled Therapeutic Medications and Prohibited Substances with regulatory thresholds and withdrawal guidelines provided for each of the 24 controlled therapeutic medications.”
8 Passed.
9 In adoption process.
7 Under discussion.
5 Uncommitted.
0 Disapproved.

“Phase 2 - Only Furosemide administered by veterinarians designated by the regulatory authority is allowed on race-day.”
12 Passed.
1 In adoption process
5 Under discussion.
11 Uncommitted.
0 Disapproved.

“Phase 3 - All equine drug testing facilities shall earn accreditation by the recently enacted RMTC Code of Standards for Drug Testing Laboratories”
4 Lab Accredited.
19 In Accreditation Process
6 Not Accredited.

“Phase 4 - Adoption of the new RCI Penalty Guidelines for Multiple Medication Violations”
4 Rules passed.
3 In adoption process
4 Under discussion
18 Uncommitted.
0 Disapproved.


Sorry, not quite as doom and gloom as she/he'd like us to believe. To me, it looks like the wheels are turning and progress is being made.

[Whirlaway]

From the site the OP is using as a basis for his/her theory that the reforms will fail:

Out of 29 States:

“Phase 1 - Two category drug classification system: Controlled Therapeutic Medications and Prohibited Substances with regulatory thresholds and withdrawal guidelines provided for each of the 24 controlled therapeutic medications.”
8 Passed.
9 In adoption process.
7 Under discussion.
5 Uncommitted.
0 Disapproved.

“Phase 2 - Only Furosemide administered by veterinarians designated by the regulatory authority is allowed on race-day.”
12 Passed.
1 In adoption process
5 Under discussion.
11 Uncommitted.
0 Disapproved.

“Phase 3 - All equine drug testing facilities shall earn accreditation by the recently enacted RMTC Code of Standards for Drug Testing Laboratories”
4 Lab Accredited.
19 In Accreditation Process
6 Not Accredited.

“Phase 4 - Adoption of the new RCI Penalty Guidelines for Multiple Medication Violations”
4 Rules passed.
3 In adoption process
4 Under discussion
18 Uncommitted.
0 Disapproved.


Sorry, not quite as doom and gloom as she/he'd like us to believe. To me, it looks like the wheels are turning and progress is being made.

Your post does not provide any new information. The data you list is at the link I provided, less of course the "disapproved." (Are you kidding!)

~

Here is some new information for your perusal. In the Waldrop NTRA letter to the Subcommittee, Waldrop writes:

“In fact, eight states in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, two regions which comprise the largest concentration of horse racing in North America, have already jointly agreed to implement the Reforms on January 1, 2014, or when a participating state’s live racing begins in 2014. These states that jointly committed to implement the reforms are Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.”

The operative phrase is “. . . implement the Reforms on January 1, 2014, or when a participating state’s live racing begins in 2014.” At such time, January 1, 2014, such jurisdiction shall have enacted all Reforms. January 1, 2014 is just a few days away and racing begins or begins shortly thereafter at the following venues:

Laurel Park, Jan. 1-Mar. 29, 2014, Sep. 5-Dec. 31, 2014 Maryland
Aqueduct, Jan. 1-Apr. 27, 2014 New York
Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course, Jan. 2-Dec. 27, 2014 Pennsylvania
Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races, Jan. 2-Dec. 27, 2014 West Virginia

How many of these states have passed all four (4) Reforms? Still look like “the wheels are turning and progress is being made?” Better yet, the comment by TJ earlier in this thread, “To recap, 9 states are good to go Jan 1st. This is the latest up to date info on the state of the current reforms . . . and this letter is more than a month old.”

Best I can tell neither of those comments is accurate. Matter of fact doesn’t look like the Reforms are getting off to a very good start at all - stumbled at the start. Of course this is hoss’ racin’, politics and avariciousness, anything can happen between now and January 2nd.

Exhibit A: Not passed: 72%
Exhibit B: Not passed: 59%
Exhibit C: Not passed: 86%
Exhibit D: Not passed: 86%

[TJ]

Better yet, the comment by TJ earlier in this thread, “To recap, 9 states are good to go Jan 1st. This is the latest up to date info on the state of the current reforms . . . and this letter is more than a month old.”

Best I can tell neither of those comments is accurate.

Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.....add California which was the last to implement. That makes 9 ready Jan. 1st for the major drug reforms. The rest are still being discussed and will be approved. TJ

[pfrsue]

My intention of quoting from the original link's site was to clarify the statistics that were presented deceptively in this thread by the OP. Nothing more.