And that performance enhancing drugs are involved.

NY Times editorial. If Big Brown Wins, Racing Loses

This might sound obvious, but it’s worth stating: horse racing is nothing without the horse. And yet right now the horse’s best interests don’t seem to be paramount in racing.
[. . .]
No one has seriously accused him [current trainer, Richard Dutrow] of doing anything untoward with Big Brown, but he’s been fined or suspended for doping in each of the last eight years, including two instances in January. The Association of Racing Commissioners International report on Dutrow reveals 72 offenses since 1979, 13 of them related to drugs.

When a guy like this wins racing’s most prestigious prize, what message does that send to everyone else involved in the sport? It tells owners that they can win by entrusting their horses to a trainer known for bending the rules.

The sport isn’t clean. People cheat, and exploit the ones actually performing.

Yawn.

This isn’t true of other sports? Michael Johnson just returned an Olympic medal because a teammate admitted to doping, thus tainting the relay victory, one of a long list of returned medals in the news in recent memory. Does anyone seriously believe claims of innocence in track and cycling anymore? baseball only recently banned steroids, and the union fought tooth and nail against testing. Football was a little more ahead of the curve, but I seem to recall the early days when tests were scheduled and only during the off-season. And that’s all beside the legal stuff that athletes do to get ready or stay that way, and the pressure put on them to be ready.

Win at all costs? Bend/break the rules to try and win the most prestigious prize? That’s only horse racing? Arlen Spector might have a comment or two about that.

The one difference here is that the horses aren’t involved in the decision — they can’t speak for themselves. Other than that, I can’t really get worked up over it.