Letter to the TDN: Fred Pope

FRED A. POPE 
It’s a good thing what happens in Virginia stays there. Each racing state is an island isn’t it? Isn’t that why there is no central authority over racing in the United States? 

But, the story about Colonial Downs in Monday’s TDN (click here) carried a different claim. The Virginia track spokesman said in a show of solidarity, horsemen’s organizations in other states used the “approval” clause in the 1978 Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA), to stop Colonial Downs from taking wagers on their races. That means revenue from off-track wagers stopped flowing. 

All’s fair in love and war, right? 

The IHA made it legal to expand the distribution of wagering on host tracks’ races across state lines. A clause says the horsemen at the host track must give approval before bet takers in other states can wager on their races. The approval clause was only to assure the host track purse account got a fair price. But, IHA language allows approval to be withheld for anything, or nothing at all. 

Does that mean horsemen’s organizations in other states can join together and use the approval clause against any track that does something they don’t like? Yes, Virginia, I believe it does. 

Last month, Keeneland asked the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) to allow them to run some future races Lasix-free. The KHRC is thinking about it. 

That puts Keeneland at odds with the Kentucky and National HBPA position on Lasix. What if horsemen’s organizations in other states join in solidarity and do to Keeneland what they reportedly did to Colonial Downs? Would they do that to Keeneland over Lasix? 

What if a track owner takes an unpopular stand on a social issue? Is that enough to have the IHA approval clause used in solidarity against them? That’s a lot of power that was mistakenly written into a federal law about distribution. 
Artificial, best-intentioned laws cripple this sport and put into power people who do what human beings do, they use any tool to their advantage. As we have discussed many times here, the IHA approval clause is archaic and has never delivered a fair price to the host purse account, but it has been used for everything else. 

Lasix isn’t the issue. Neither is changing the IHA definition of horsemen to racehorse owners. The issue is the need to remove the IHA approval clause altogether because it doesn’t apply to the new realities of off-track wagering. There weren’t any iPhones in 1978. 

If you remove the approval clause from the IHA, this sport will have eliminated an artificial burden. If you allow it to continue, with full knowledge of how it is being misused and abused, then you share responsibility.