view raw text
California By Oscar Otis Ask Adoption of New Yok Drug Rule Money Alone Cant Protect-Giesler Horsemen Coming Around to Printing? HOLLYWOOD PARK, Inglewood, Calif., May 30. The statement foundry has been working overtime the last few days, more specifically, ever since last Satur day afternoon when Willie Molter was suspended for 30 days following the discovery -of a benzedrine-type drug in the horse, Joe Price. Almost everybody has something to say on the subject, but about the only thing solid that has emerged from the welter of suggestions as to how rule 1871, that which holds the trainer of a horse responsible for the condition of his horse regardless of tVio ante of Viifi norHps ic. t.VlP proposal that California switch to the so-called New York rule. In New York, we understand, they make an investigation before announcing any ruling, and if the trainer is held personally blameless, why, nothing happens except the losing of the purse. But if negligence is shown, as a lax stable situation when judged by standard operation, up to a six months suspension may be dealt, and if personal responsibility is shown, then revocation of license may be in order. This rule, a more generous one than Californias 1871, seems to work well enough in New York and has considerable merit. We asked our old friend, attorney Jerry Giesler, most often as not an attorney for the defense and a man with a warm heart for the underdog, or little fellow, and as well the one-time California racing commissioner who fought through the rule change to eliminate the owner from prima facie responsibility along with the trainer, and he said, "As a former rac-ing commissioner, I feel rather strongly that the public has to have some protection, and the rule holding the trainer responsible is the only: workable one Ive heard of. The solution to the prevention of stimulation does not fit, in my opinion, in adding more and more costly safeguards, for any such system has a weakness, no matter how elaborate or expensive it might be and in itself could not halt a man really determined to stimulate a horse." New Procedure in Stable Area One concrete development of the current investigation is the announced detailing of TRPB men to accompany the vets as they make their rounds in the stable area, as well as protecting vets from trainers, by posting a red placard over the stall of every horse the moment that horse is officially entered. A special meeting of the vets was held Wednesday morning in the stable area at which senior steward Wendell Cas-sidy outlined the new procedure. The vets, for the most part, listened in silence. We have heard considerable argument in favor of such a system, which in theory seems foolproof at least in stopping one possible avenue to "medicating" a horse but how it works out in actual practice remains to be seen. Offhand, it seems it should help. It is rather odd, too, to learn that a group of horsemen have advanced the suggestion that everyone in the stable area be fingerprinted as a means of keeping undesirables, and hence potential stimulators, away from the horse barns. This is literally astonishing, for while the HBPA in this part of the world has never quibbled too much about fingerprints, other horsemens groups have refused to be so printed and have hollered loudly and long, about being coupled as an entry with criminals, etc. To link fingerprinting in this day and age with criminality is sheer nonsense, of course, but to hear that horsemen are advocating it is a highly newsworthy item. We have been for the fingerprint program for a long time, knowing that it has accomplished a deal of preventative good. Huge Receiving Barn Too Costly It also is amusing to notice that many plans, such as a 100-stall receiving bam where starters would be taken hours, or maybe days, before their- post time and be placed under vigilant guard, which I take to mean hiring guards to watch other guards, and which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to build, even more to maintain vall at the tracks expense, of course, have been advanced with so much seeming sincerity. These people seem to think that money, can solve any problem, not realizing that a system is no stronger than the people who man it, and, as Giesler so clearly pointed out, money and systems in themselves cannot make a really effective anti-stimulant barricade. There has arisen stricter enforcement of the "no medication within 48 hours" rule, with permission to treat a horse now almost automatically being denied everyone except for a few horses with a tendency to bleed. Upon report and approval, a coagulant may be administered, a substance which does not have any forbidden ingredients and which has been proved as almost 100 per cent effective. Still, a check of the statistics show that horses previously given needed medication less than 48 hours before a race won no more than their normal percentage share of races, nor did any of those who won turn up stimulated. This 48-hour rule is quite controversial, and up until now, about all that has been heard about it is the arguments in favor. We understand there is a monograph showing the ill and harmful effects of the rule now under preparation by interested parties, and will be made available to the racing authorities and public at an early date.
