By the start of 1960s, the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association had become a powerful voice in American Thoroughbred racing. Horsemen could not only demand their rights, but they were also beginning to contribute to the direction the sport needed to take in what was a rapidly evolving landscape. In some ways, both the sport and the HBPA were equipped to deal with these changes. But no one could have foreseen all that was about to happen.

On August 1, 1960, Sports Illustrated published an article titled “The Mysterious Buty Treatment,” which touched upon two troubling developments in the sport of horse racing. Reporter William Leggett wrote that the state of Kentucky was permitting trainers to use a drug called Butazolidin, a pain-killing medication that also helped reduced inflammation. Equally as controversial was the fact the public knew nothing of which horses were being treated with “Bute.”

It was rumored that Venetian Way, the winner of that year’s Kentucky Derby, had been treated with the drug. His trainer, Vic Sovinski, denied it. But other trainers with Derby horses reported their charges had raced with Bute.

Following the controversy, the state of Illinois quickly decided to not only legalize the medication, but also provide horseplayers with a daily mimeographed list of which animals were racing with what was sometime referred to as “horse aspirin” or “happy aspirin.” Leggett’s article reported that horses racing with Bute at Arlington Park outside Chicago, in general, were performing better than expectations.

Inside the industry, opinions were diverse:

“People keep telling me that Sandy Koufax used Butazolidin every time he pitched. But Koufax knew what he was doing … The horse doesn’t have this option.” --Keene Daingerfield, president, Society of North American Racing Officials

“We in racing seem to live in constant fear of what outsiders think of us. We should first be sure we are doing right to ourselves, then public confidence will follow.” --John H. Clark, breeder

“A horse in good health runs faster than a horse in poor health--it’s that simple. And without medication, there aren’t enough healthy horses to fill out a card. I’m 100 percent for controlled medication.” --John A. Manfuso, president, Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association

“Sunny” Jim Fitzsimmons, a Hall of Fame trainer and the first HBPA president, was also in favor of legalizing Bute. In early 1962, he told Dean Eagle of the Louisville Times, “If you’re going to protect the public, you should be allowed to send horses out in the best condition possible.”

The debate, while never solving the inevitable public relations nightmare, began to recede. The bad dream finally came true in 1968, when Kentucky Derby winner Dancer’s Image tested positive for Bute. At that time, the drug was illegal in Kentucky. First-place money was awarded to Calumet Farm’s Forward Pass, but the stewards amended their original ruling because the rules concerning disqualification for forbidden drugs stated only that the purse could be taken away. Dancer’s Image was decreed a “non-profit” winner. There were also inconsistencies in the chemist’s report, as well as contradictions in his testimony.

A legal war ensued between Peter Fuller, the owner of Dancer’s Image, and Churchill Downs officials. The court battle lasted for years, but it would not undo the disqualification of the 1968 Derby winner. Calumet eventually received the first place money.

The Horseman’s Journal publisher Tony Chamblin wrote, “No one with regard for the facts can deny that a problem has existed for years in racing chemistry …

“It is significant that since the 1968 Derby, a number of charges for ‘positives’ have been dropped by racing commissions before reaching the court level.

“E.S. (Ned) Bonnie, one of three attorneys representing Fuller, has become the F. Lee Bailey of the backstretch. In the past two years, he represented 12 horsemen on Talwin (a similar medication to Bute) charges in Louisiana, another 12 DMSO charges in Illinois, and another in Michigan. All were cleared.”

The Dancer’s Image affair also fueled horsemen to push for legalization of certain medications. In April of 1969, a poll among members of the Chicago division of the HBPA showed the membership voting by an eight to one margin to endorse the legalization of Bute. The local president, William Hal Bishop, commented, “I would say some 90 percent of horses now racing are sore. Why not make it easier on them?”

Trainer John Nerud, of Dr. Fager fame, said, “Butazolidin is a mild medication which reduces soreness. As for controlling its use, that’s easy. Just make it reportable. Any time a vet treats a horse, he fills out a report.”

Horsemen also began pushing for the legalization of Bute in California. The Golden State eventually became the first major racing state to accept Bute for controlled usage in the treatment of sore horses.

Florida followed, as did Illinois. Early in 1974, the Maryland HBPA requested that state’s racing commission modify medication rules to allow the usage of Bute. Kentucky’s legalization of Bute came in the spring of 1974, and with it came the relighting of the old debate about making public the news about which horses were being treated with the medication.

William H. May, chairman of the Kentucky State Racing Commission, said, “I don’t know why we’re withholding that information from the press. If a representative of the public makes an inquiry, I think it should be granted.”

However, it was not until 1986 that a Kentucky Derby chart recorded which horses were receiving Bute. By that time, another medication had been legalized in the Blue Grass state, Lasix; its chart abbreviation, a capital ‘L.’

In July of 1974, then HBPA president Jack DeFee opened an association seminar on the subject of legalizing Bute. DeFee asserted, “At this time, the aim of the HBPA is to get approval of controlled medication on a national basis, in every racing jurisdiction, if possible, and to promote consistency in the medication of race horses.”

Six years later, when opponents began a drive to ban all medication in Thoroughbreds, DeFee and the HBPA released a policy statement on medication. Its 11 guidelines advocated better testing procedures, safer racing surfaces, and the use of “therapeutic medication as prescribed by a veterinarian licensed by his state racing commission.” It also stated, “That we oppose any attempt by any group, commission, or organization to ban therapeutic medication for racehorses and will request our 50,000 members throughout the United States to support this position.”

Though the use of both Bute and the diuretic Lasix became more permissible in the 1970s, the “Golden Era” of racing, not all horsemen wanted to go along for the ride. Trainer Gordon Potter, of Crimson Satan fame, said, “The trainer who doesn’t take care of his horse has the same edge with Bute as the trainer who does make the effort. A trainer running on Bute doesn’t have to work at his job as hard as he would if he didn’t have the edge, and I don’t think that’s right.”

Retired Hall of Fame trainer Jimmy Jones observed, “They’re overdoing this drug thing. Now they’re coming up with diuretics such as Lasix, which drains the body of all fluids and enables one to mask other, possibly illegal drugs.”

Though there were dissenting voices in their own ranks, local HBPA divisions and the national office consistently supported the legalization of controlled medications like Bute and Lasix. That stance did not change in the following years, either.

• Like It or Not, It’s Here

In 1969, John A. Manfuso, a Washington D.C. businessman and longtime HBPA supporter, was voted national president of the organization. In office, he stood behind an eventually unsuccessful, HBPA-initiated anti-trust lawsuit against the Jockey Club, the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and the Thoroughbred Breeders’ and Owners’ Association (TOBA). The complaint described the practice of persons owning and racing horses at the tracks they controlled as “basic and inherent evil.”

The Blood-Horse’s Kent Hollinsgworth wrote, “Unquestionably, HBPA has proved a to be a force for the good of race horse owners--by and large … (Their lawsuit) is asking, in essence, that all semblance of class be removed from racing in New York. A loose horse, going the wrong way of the track.”

The lawsuit added fuel to the notion that the HBPA had always been too keen to support what some considered the “cheaper side” of racing. Another initiative of that time was a pay-every-starter system established at Detroit Race Course. The design was to make sure that owners would receive at least enough in each race to pay jockey fees, which recently had seenan increase.

Years before, the HBPA, behind then national president Frank E. Mackie, proposed the “Argentine Plan.” The Horsemen’s Journal’s Tony Chamblin wrote, “It had proved extremely successful in Argentina, where every owner with a horse in the race gets 1% of the money bet on a horse. It’s the most equitable plan because it rewards an owner to the degree that his horse generates revenue.” But the Argentine Plan never made it to America. And the pay-every-horse project never reached national acceptance.

Chamblin wrote that Manfuso was also a “strict believer in the autonomy of local divisions. Manfuso’s philosophy encourages horsemen to let off steam … ‘Conflicts are the life and blood of an organization like the HBPA. Without them, we might as well be a social club.’ Manfuso also said, “I might not be the most popular president the HBPA ever had. But when I leave … the roots will be stronger than ever.”

During this time, the HBPA had to brace itself for another potential monster looming on horse racing’s landscape: off-track betting (OTB). Since the early 1960s, New York City officials had planned to open a series of OTB parlors. Early proposals were indifferent to the concerns of both racetracks and horsemen, and dissenting voices inside the sport rang loud and clear. Alfred Vanderbilt, president of the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association (TOBA) said, “I have always been convinced that off-track betting would be harmful both to racing and the community. It is sure to cause a serious drop in attendance and betting at the tracks, which we can’t afford … I think bookmaking will increase.”

The September 1969 issue of The Horsemen’s Journal recorded the HBPA’s policy statement: “The National Board (of the HBPA) is unanimously opposed to off-track betting on the grounds that it is detrimental to the best interests of racing, is detrimental to the public, and to the states themselves. The HBPA will oppose off-track betting by all means at its disposal.”

American horsemen and racing officials were dumbfounded by what was happening north of the border in Ontario, Canada. In 1966, two taxi drivers were arrested for acting as bet couriers for horseplayers who were not able to make the races at nearby Fort Erie racetrack. They were convicted of “engaging in the business or occupation of betting.” However, a higher court overturned the verdict.

With no laws to govern off-track wagering in Ontario, betting shops became something of a rage. In the summer of 1967, the first popped up in the town of Welland, close to Fort Erie. The proprietor there created a service charge of 50 cents for a $2 wager and, for larger wagers, he charged 10 cents on the dollar. It must have been a success; less than two years later, there were approximately 100 betting shops in Toronto alone.

Due to intense political wrangling, New York City’s OTB parlors had not opened until April 8, 1971. Writing for The Horsemen’s Journal, Gerald Strine said, “There were brown tickets for the exacta, green tickets for the daily double, bay tickets for win, pink slips for place and blue tickets for show … The system was atrocious. No morning line. No payoff the same day. Horses were coded to letters instead of the traditional numbers. OTB was making it as difficult as possible for bettors to make a bet.”

Still, the parlors were wildly popular. At the Grand Central Station parlor, “people were standing 80-deep in each of the 10 lines.”

One OTB manager commented, “We never expected anything like this. We weren’t prepared for it.”

Racetracks and OTB parlors certainly were not ready for one another, not at this point. Strine wrote, “The cooperation, or lack thereof, between the tracks and OTB continues to be a staggering sight to behold. They coexist, much like North and South Korea. The tracks are afraid (OTB) will hurt their attendance and handle while repaying them one per cent for a gradually going-out-of-business sale.”

The sport held its collective breath, waiting to see the fallout from the New York City OTB parlors. By the end of 1971, on-track attendance had dropped by 2.5 percent at New York tracks. But a report from the Council of State Governments stated that “attendance also fell in three other Northeastern states, and the decline in two of these states was much greater than in New York City. New Jersey and Maine, neither of which had off-track betting, had drops of 15 and 24 percent, respectively, in 1971.”

The study also said, “While there has been a decline in race track attendance, the drop in 1971 was not nearly as great as the increase in the numbers of bettors. It is therefore possible that a substantially different customer market is being served at off-track betting parlors.”

Positions concerning off-track wagering were reconsidered. John Manfuso wrote in The Horsemen’s Journal, “The HBPA was on record for seven years as unalterably opposed to any form of off-track betting. We considered it extremely dangerous to the economic well-being of horse owners, most of whom are already losing heavily on their racing investments.

“(Off-track betting) is here, like it or not, and horsemen must make the best of it … We certainly do not want a repeat of the situation which brought about the unfair off-track betting bill in New York, where the racing industry was utilized as a scapegoat to provide for the extravagant welfare programs of Mayor John Lindsay.

“I personally have maintained an independent stand on off-track betting. I have taken the position that if it helps the racing industry, we are for it, but if it hurts the industry, we are opposed.”

As the 1970s wore on, horse racing saw a sharp decline in on-track attendance. By 1977, New York tracks saw their daily average hit below 20,000; in 1970, that average had been almost 30,000. Santa Anita President Robert Strub, speaking at a Thoroughbred Racing Association (TRA) convention, believed there was “no question” OTB had been harmful to racing in New York.

New York Racing Association (NYRA) Chairman Ogden “Dinny” Phipps asserted, “OTB has taken away from us people who would have to come to our tracks.”

The HBPA’s DeFee, who followed Manfuso as national president, proclaimed himself a backer of OTB, “… providing that all the money wagered goes through the windows and that the tracks and the horsemen get their fair share. Under these circumstances, OTB might be the salvation of racing.”

DeFee also proclaimed himself to be against interstate OTB, the betting of simulcast races across state lines. Hall of Fame jockey Willie Shoemaker, then president of the Jockeys Guild, echoed DeFee’s concern about interstate OTB. Both believed it would be detrimental to smaller tracks throughout the country.

The debates about off-track betting were as complex, intense, and passionate as the ones concerning the legalization of medication. By the late 1970s, however, even their staunchest critics understood that neither medication in race horses nor off-track betting parlors were going to disappear.

Prepared or not, horse racing had already sprinted into its future. The HBPA had stayed in stride, even altering its path when the situation required it. It was a good thing, too, because that perilous decade known as the 1980s was coming fast.

Return