Intercontinental

(As appeared in the Letters to the Editor section of the Bloodhorse July 22, 2006)
Once again the California Horse Racing Board got it wrong and completely missed the point when stewards ruled in favor of Intercontinental by stating that furosemide was “a legal pre-race day medication” and that there was “no evidence that proved that the late administration of the authorized medication provided an edge to Intercontinental”.

Have they completely forgotten what happened on that day? That day a veterinarian lied about the time she administered the shot of Salix and falsified reports that stated the times at which the shot was administered. The connections of Intercontinental knew or should have known at what time the shot was administered and it should have been their obligation to report the situation immediately to the stewards; but they did nothing! Hoping, no doubt, that no one would notice. It was only because security was able to video tape the time of administration that this all came to light.

The rules state that Salix must be administered at least four hours before the time of the race. The penalty for breaching the rule is that a horse must be scratched from the race - a very severe result. This rule was put in place no doubt to protect the integrity of racing, the health of the horses and to assure that no one obtains an unfair advantage. This rule was clearly violated when the Salix shot was administered to Intercontinental 20 minutes too late. The stewards would now have us believe that this rule is immaterial and that no unfair advantage was obtained. Are they really saying that their rules are meaningless?

No penalty was incurred by the connections of Intercontinental and only a $750 fine was imposed on the lying vet.

The shortsightedness of the steward’s decision completely missed the point. It is not the unfair advantage obtained in the race that must be punished; it is not even the breach of the rule that is the big issue. It is the cover-up by the connections of Intercontinental and the lying by the veterinarian that must be dealt with severely with an exemplary punishment that will deter future lies, falsifications and wrongdoings.

What the stewards are screaming with their decision is that it is better to lie that to tell the truth, that it is better to falsify a report that to admit that a mistake was made, that it is better to remain quiet than to come forward. The punishment should have been such that when this situation arises again everyone involved will have a big incentive to come forward and inform the stewards of the problem so that it can be dealt with before the race, before the betting public is affected. What they have done is to make it clear to everyone that they should keep hiding, that they should keep lying. After all what is the cost of lying if one is found out? The answer is $750. The benefits? A win in a Grade II race.