joemama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is how they allowed the change to the
> \"rule\". In some of the other sports , for example
> professional football if a rule change is
> implemented it is done at the beginning of the
> next season. Not in the middle of the season.
> This rule was changed in the middle of the season
> . I would have liked to see if the connections of
> CC would have skipped the Belmont if the nasal
> strip was not allowed. Am not sure who said they
> would skip the race , but one of CC\'s connections
> must have said it and that speaks volumes as to
> how CC\'s connections view the uses of the nasal
> strip. I can go on and on with this one but....
No \"rule\" was changed. The \"rule\" said it was up to the discretion of the stewards. They used their discretion. As I said before, it was ridiculous that something like this remained discretionary fifteen years after NY had ruled on its viability in standardbred racing, and that it had been allowed in nearly every other racing jurisdiction. So, in this instance, the NYS Gaming Commission medical director, Dr. Scott Palmer, said \"Equine nasal strips do not enhance equine performance nor do they pose a risk to equine health or safety and as such do not need to be regulated.\" This was supported by the director of equine sports medicine at Tufts University, and by Rose Nolen-Watson, a specialist in pulmonary function at Penn\'s School of Veterinary Medicine, who said, \"The data show a small but consistent effect and the risk is nothing.\" Rick Violette, president of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen\'s Association who had tried them on a number of horses, said, \"Frankly they don\'t seem to make a whole lot of difference.\" He is obviously not without vested interested in the outcome of Saturday\'s race.
So there was no rule prohibiting them, but merely a practice not supported by documentation, and not only contrary to other racing jurisdictions, but also the state\'s own internal regulation regarding its other equine activity. If there\'s a baseball analogy, it would be akin to allowing a team of umpires in the American League to decide each game whether some form of equipment, for which there was no documented evidence of its beneficial use, could be used or not, while in the National League it had been determined that this form of equipment was absolutely fine. That would be lunacy, and the only sane move is to establish a rule that is not discretionary, but is uniform and based on existing scientific evidence and opinion. The fact that it was done now is not the absurdity. That it took fifteen years for it to happen, is.
