I must convey my disappointment at the opinions expressed by John Messara (and supported by Slade Bloodstock) regarding the administration to racing thoroughbreds of "normalising" medication. That the expression itself should be brought into the Australian racing vernacular is distasteful enough - for high-profile (though only subsidiary) affiliates of the racing industry to actually condone the practice, and in so doing attempt to influence the governors of Australian horseracing, is reprehensible. To also thus imply that the standards set by those given the responsibility of ensuring the ongoing (and ameliorated) integrity of the nation's horseracing - the Stipendiary Stewards - are in some way flawed, and therefore detrimental to the industry, is transparent self-aggrandizement.

From all but the most mercenary of viewpoints, the practice of allowing horses to race when unfit (a rational assumption or presumably medication would not be required) must be regarded as objectionable, and would be considered entirely negligent within the Occupational Health And Safety guidelines of any other industry. It takes little imagination to foresee the bleak outcome for horseracing if any dire consequences of such a practice were to be placed in a legal framework (of course only licenced persons, the relevant authorities, and those responsible for introducing the medication would ultimately be vulnerable to litigation or prosecution - mere "opinion-makers" would remain, as always, immune). If the safety of those industry participants at greatest risk - the horses and riders - is to be given its rightful value, then the preparation and presentation of horses engaged to race must be free from the deceits of "patch-up" medication. Their welfare should not be compromised by the suppression of subclinical conditions, and the "masking" of known pathologies.

In a nation that prides itself on it's history of horsemanship, for industry "luminaries" to exploit the shortcomings of another country's racing enterprise (shortcomings their administrators are in the process of addressing), and to cloak their self-serving indignation beneath the mantle of altruism, is lamentable. It is equally unfortunate that these individuals should exhibit such disregard for the very raw material they purvey.

If the distinctions between right and wrong, legal and illegal, or improbity and morality need to be made, start by remembering the name "Savage Cabbage".

Malcolm L. Hayes.