“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that in one of his more pragmatic moments. If what he suggests is true, the Thoroughbred racing world must be overflowing with intellectual firepower.There is “We love horses, and horses love to run” vs. “Serious injuries and fatalities are just part of the game.”There is “We oppose the use of Lasix because it is not good for our horses” vs. “Our horses run on Lasix because we need to be competitive.”And then there is “We support federal regulation of horse racing” vs. “We do not support federal legislation banning horse slaughter.”Horse racing has been taking a beating this year, from both self-inflicted wounds and a drive-by national media suddenly concerned about something other than White House tweets. The recent HBO Real Sports segment on horse abuse was one of those snuff-porn exercises in pretend investigative journalism that elicits only screams of “Yes!” or “No!” rather than constructive dialogue.Alex Waldrop, head of the NTRA, offered a point-by-point dismissal of the HBO program in a letter to the network that was as close to a unified racing industry statement as there can be. Waldrop noted this week that he has received no response from HBO regarding his challenge to both the errors of commission and omission in the segment. What a surprise.At this point, in an atmosphere so poisoned, racing does not have the Don Draper option of “changing the conversation.” But racing does have a slam-dunk chance to cultivate public approval with a simple, low-calorie effort that should have 100 percent backing from all corners of the fragmented industry:Support the SAFE ACT (H.R. 961) banning horse slaughter and its facilitation.No horses are legally slaughtered for their meat in the U.S. because Congress has defunded the inspections of equine slaughterhouses. And yet, the United States continues to supply the international horse slaughter industry by allowing horses to be sold and transported to Canada and Mexico, and then on to horsemeat-eating countries in Europe and Asia.The current version of the SAFE Act was introduced in February and is sitting in the Livestock and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture. The bill would outlaw slaughter in the U.S. once and for all and forbid horses to be exported for slaughter. In one sense, it is a blindingly honest bill, since its particulars point out that any meat from the vast majority of American horses ending up in the slaughter pipeline would be tainted in varying degrees by medication they received as work horses, pleasure horses, or racehorses, for the simple reason that they were never raised as a food source to begin with.The NTRA’s Waldrop was asked if his coalition of racing interests would lead the charge to support passage of the SAFE Act and end horse slaughter as an issue hanging over the head of the sport. His response: “While we strongly oppose the slaughter of Thoroughbreds for human consumption, NTRA members and affiliates represent a wide spectrum of views regarding a legislated ban on slaughter, so we have for the last several years chosen to remain neutral on the [Act]. Nonetheless, we continue to re-evaluate that position with each iteration of the SAFE Act.”Asked the same question, James Gagliano of The Jockey Club echoed,“The Jockey Club board hasn’t taken a formal position on this particular act,” Gagliano said. “However, we have a policy that says The Jockey Club is unequivocally opposed to the slaughter or processing of Thoroughbreds for consumption by humans or animals. This includes the sale and/or transportation of Thoroughbreds for slaughter.”Chris Heyde hears this and sighs. The Washington, D.C., lobbyist, now through his firm Blue Marble Strategy, has been fighting the anti-slaughter fight for most of this century. “As much as racing is getting beat up right now, you would think they would jump at the change to get behind passage of the act,” Heyde said. “There is absolutely zero potential of loss on this issue. And the support is there. Senator [Mitch] McConnell supports the ban, and he’s the majority leader. “I think a lot of it has just kind of been apathy,” Heyde added. “The legislation is there. It languishes. And the slaughter trade continues, while in the meantime, from what I see, racing’s big foray into appeasing anybody is dealing with PETA.”Heyde was referring to the alliance between The Stronach Group and the hyper-activist animal-rights organization in the wake of the equine fatalities at Santa Anita earlier this year.“That’s your big solution for PR is to deal with PETA?” Heyde said. “They are perceived horribly on the Hill, and perceived horribly by the larger public. Yes, they can raise a stink, but they also have an extremely short attention span.”In the meantime the SAFE Act sits at the edge of the cup, a tap-in waiting for a unified effort from racing groups like the NTRA and The Jockey Club.“Every PR firm in the world should be telling them that this is a freebie to get behind, push, and advance,” Heyde said. “It’s so frustrating, because they can’t even adopt the most simple, positive thing they can do.”