Page 18 - 20 July 2012

“It is not easy separating morality from practicality, thus making it difficult for racing jurisdictions searching for the correct solution.”
decisiOns
Practicality versus morality.
by Stacy Pigott
On July 1, 2012, BloodHorse blogger Steve Haskin wrote an article that should be required reading for everyone in the horse
racing industry. The article, “The History of Drugs in America,” overviews drug use in horse racing, high- lighting some of the memorable events that shaped the industry’s use of and response to drugs.
Haskin begins: “So, you’ve had it with drugs and wish racing was like it used to be—just hay, oats, and water. Well, we hate to disillusion anyone, but America was never the way it used to be.
“From its very beginning, racing in America has been plagued by drugs, most of them a great deal more potent than the ones that have received all the headlines the past several years.
“All the inconsistencies in drug policy that we’re experiencing now are nothing new to the sport.”
I’ll admit, it was somewhat disheartening for me to be reminded that doping has played such a major role in the history of horse racing. From horses run- ning on heroine in the 1930s, to the 1968 Kentucky Derby winner who lost his crown because he ran on bute, to a stunning 1979 exposé by “60 Minutes” that sounds eerily similar to the recent New York Times coverage of horse racing, it seems not much has changed in the past century.
Sure, we have more rules and regulations regard- ing drugs. And yes, drug testing has improved consid- erably over the years. But we still fight a losing battle against illegal drugs, whether it’s heroine, bute (which is now legal is most racing jurisdictions at approved levels), clenbuterol, ractopamine, zilpaterol, dermor- phin, or the next designer drug on the way.
Haskin even goes so far as to state: “As long as horses race and new drugs infiltrate the market, there are going to be medication controversies.”
Haskin’s premise that horse racing will never exist without drug problems is probably true. As long as there is money to be made on horse racing, there will be people who do whatever it takes to win. Just take a look back at our own history.
American Quarter Horse racing started as match racing at bush tracks, where horsemen would pit horse against horse in a sheer display of speed. It was not uncommon for a good horse to race under several different names. Markings were changed with hair dye. Many owners went to great lengths to make sure no one knew who their horse was, or how fast it was. They were deceitful. They lied and cheated, all to win
a horse race. Sure, the stories of the “good ol’ days” are fun to listen to now, and get told with a carefree attitude that suggests that “the way it used to be” was better than it is now, but as Haskin said, it “was never was the way it used to be.”
There were people who lied, cheated and drugged horses back then; there are people who lie, cheat and drug horses now. And we still don’t have a good solu- tion to make it stop. No, not much has changed in horse racing. But maybe it could.
As Haskin begins to wrap up his history lesson, he writes: “Racing is not only a sport, employing thou- sands upon thousands of people and generating huge sums of revenue, it also is a business. It is not easy separating morality from practicality, thus making
it difficult for racing jurisdictions searching for the correct solution.”
Focus on these two words for a moment: morality and practicality. Morality is the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong. Morality, or ethics, is the belief system that differentiates between good and bad. Practicality, on the other hand, is concerned with the actual doing of something rather than with theory and ideas. Practicality tells you whether an idea is likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; whether it is feasible.
Morality versus practicality. Doing what is right versus doing what is practical and feasible. It is not easy to separate the two, which raises the question, when did it become acceptable to do so? When did we stop believing that morality is as important as prac- ticality? When did we start believing that we could make decisions based on practicality alone? After all, can there actually be a “correct solution” if the focus is solely on practicality without a nod to morality?
Even as far back as the 1500s, the Italian dip- lomat, philosopher and writer Niccolò Machiavelli said, “Because just as good morals, if they are to be maintained, have need of the laws, so the laws, if they are to be observed, have need of good morals.”
No, not much has changed in horse racing over the last century when it comes to illegal drugs. They were there then; they are still here now. Around the country, racing commissions, state associations, and even individual horsemen are facing major decisions that could shape the future of horse racing and finally bring about some welcome change. But it is change that can only occur if practicality is always tempered with a healthy dose of morality.
16
SPEEDHORSE, July 20, 2011
UNDER WRAPS