Government Mandated Commissioner?

Well many have said it, but now it's here.

In the bloodhorse: "Congress May Call June Hearing on Racing"

One of the items:

The subcommittee is seeking, among other things... whether industry officials support formation of a national governing body for horse racing.

The answer better be yes, or they will do it for us. No more, "laughter when someone mentions a commissioner".


Congress may look at the Interstate Horseracing Act, which authorizes simulcasts across state lines, including account wagering.

No more fighting over a shrinking pie, perhaps?

“Given the benefits of the IHA to the racing industry, we believe congressional oversight should play a role in determining whether the special status of the sport under federal law is still warranted,”

No more "special status?" Will we be forced to finally compete?

[looking into] whether racing programs bolstered by gaming revenue use money for research to improve the breed;

No more ten race careers before stud duty?

Over the years many have said this has to happen - we have to address the problems and the fractured state of the game. It has been said working as a monopoly in a perfectly competitive business is not acceptable. It has been echoed that without a captain, the ship can not be turned. It has been said horses should not be allowed to go to stud before 5 years of age. It has been echoed that places like betfair and other low cost games have to be copied, not mocked by hiding behind protectionist, archaic laws. It has been said that medication laws should be the same for racing everywhere.

And it has been said by many: If we don't fix them, someone else will.

It appears that it might be happening.

No comments:


Carryovers Provide Big Reach and an Immediate Return

Sinking marketing money directly into the horseplayer by seeding pools is effective, in both theory and practice In Ontario and elsewher...