A not-so-capital idea

Winston Churchill famously observed that democracy is the worst form of government — except for all of the others.

Which is about how I feel about the House Commerce Committee’s decision to hold hearings on horse racing (article here). It’s the worst idea to deal with racing’s problems — except, possibly, for all the others.

As a guy who spent more years than I care to remember lobbying Congress, I can say with some assurance that, while there are many things Congress does poorly, perhaps what it does worst of all is regulate industries that it neither cares about nor understands.

There probably aren’t two dozen members who care at all about horse racing, and even fewer who understand it. When members have no real moral compass on an issue (and, honestly, there are far too many issues for members to feel strongly about, or even have an in-depth understanding of, all of them), all sorts of mischief are possible.

So, what to look for at the hearing in June? There will certainly be grandstanding. There will be ignorance. There will be pompous pronouncements. There will be silliness. There will be threats. And, later, there may well be legislation — of a scope and impact that racing may find offensive. And may be unable to head off.

But that’s why, as bad an idea as Congressional intervention is, this hearing may be the “least worst” idea that’s come down the pike. Because the hearing and its aftermath will likely provide racing a last, best chance to get its house in order.

While it may seem otherwise to the casual observer, Congress is often loathe to act if another solution is possible. For all the threats that baseball endured, Congress got what it really wanted — baseball stepped up to the plate on its own. I don’t think Congress wants to step in to solve horse racing’s problems; but at this point, it’s not clear that anyone else is going to. The combination of high-profile breakdowns — at the Derby, Preakness, and Breeders’ Cup in the last few years — and the lack of apparent change in the industry are the “perfect storm” that has suddenly piqued Congress’ interest.

They are also, potentially, the catalyst for real change. The way for racing to prevent subsequent Congressional intervention is to get there first — with a plan that’s national in scope and appropriately hard-hitting to reduce equine drug use and promote safety and durability.

Not so many years ago, a lot of the better horses didn’t run on Lasix — because, although it was legal in most states, it was still banned in New York. Since New York has such a large share of the major races, trainers didn’t use it if they hoped to come to the Empire State.

And that’s the sort of model racing can follow — a leveraged model, rather than a 50-state model.

And all it takes — maybe — is for four bodies to agree. If the three Triple Crown states formed a compact to adopt uniform drug and safety regulations, and the Breeders’ Cup adopted the same — meaning that the Cup would only go to states that adopted identical regulations — the resultant pressure would be enormous.

States with Triple Crown prep races would almost certainly fall in line, since it would be critical to them for their preps to remain relevant. States that harbor a hope of hosting the Cup — including New Jersey, Texas, and Illinois — would also come aboard.

And eventually, smaller states with lesser races would join the rush.

Ideally, the key states and the Breeders’ Cup could announce the agreement at, or shortly after, the Congressional hearings. Congress would be satisfied that its concerns had been addressed. Racing would take a big step in the right direction.

And the Congressional hearings would have served a truly useful purpose.

What happens next is up to racing. But if it fails to act — then we may see just how bad the idea of Congressional intervention can become.