You think it is acceptable for a track to have 22 horses break down in a little over 2 months?

It seems like the surface is the problem, and this has nothing to do with what the changes they are proposing. :zz:

I could be wrong but I don't think there is anything wrong with the track. Rock-hard, sealed tracks are dangerous. It has been raining for over half the meet. The track is constantly being sealed. I think that is the main reason there have been more breakdowns this meet. I think they need to stop sealing the track. In general it is much safer for horses to run on a deep, muddy track than a rock-hard, sealed track.

I remember the old days back in the late 70s and early 80s when they used to have some of those crazy muddy tracks. I remember one day the track was listed as "heavy". I think they ran a mile in about 1:45. There were a couple of bad things about those "muddy" tracks and "heavy" tracks. There were always tons of scratches. Most of the fields were 4 and 5 horse fields. The winner would sometimes win by 20 lengths and the 2nd horse would beat the 3rd horse by 15 lengths. Some horses hated these tracks and couldn't handle them at all. Other horses would love these tracks. That was why the fields were often times so spread out.

I don't remember ever seeing a breakdown on one of those tracks. The problem was that the fans hated all the 4 and 5 horse fields and they didn't like horses winning races by 20 lengths and other horses getting beat by 40 lengths. It was bad for business. The handle was low on these days. In addition, when it rained really hard, it would take the track many days to recover. The track could get really messed up. So they solved this by sealing the track. That way the track would stay fast. Water would not get into the track. The water would just sit on top of the rock-hard track. Instead of the track being so slow, they would often times get track records on these sloppy tracks.

I always thought these sealed tracks were dangerous. I hated running horses on sealed tracks. When it was my call, I would usually scratch a horse rather than running on a sealed track. Anyway, with the disproportionate amount of rain we have had this winter in Southern California, the track has been sealed this meet far more than normal. I think that is the most likely cause of the increase in breakdowns. I think they should stop sealing the track. If you have a day when it is supposed to rain 2-3 inches and they feel that they have to seal the track, then I think they should cancel the races that day. I don't think they should race or train on a sealed track.

It may be insincere, and it may be self-serving. But are there any bad ideas in what they are proposing to do?

TSG is doing their all to make NYRA Racing Great Again. What owner in their right mind would succumb to this fabricated nonsense?

You chase the respected and highly competent superintendent out, the track gets screwed up, horses die, you spin the issue away from management errors, and lo and behold you ruin your business.

The entry box at Belmont BETTER be bloated.

Speaking of fabricated nonsense, what owner in their right mind would think that it's good to have a $1,500 vet bill on every horse every month, would think that horses need lasix, and would think that injecting ankles and using all kinds of drugs as a crutch is the best way to go? What owner in their right mind would think the status quo is fine and that we should just continue using all kinds of drugs?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that lasix caused these breakdowns. I'm simply saying that these changes were long overdue. This current crisis gives them the impetus to start making the changes that will save the sport.

I think these changes will be a huge positive in the long run. In the short run, I don't know what will happen. Some trainers are threatening to leave Southern California. I don't know if they are bluffing or not. If a few do in fact leave, it won't be a problem. But if too many leave, it will be a big problem because there will be a horse shortage, which would hurt field size. We know that small fields are very bad for business.

One quick question, You think TSG gives a flying **** about that nonsense above? Isn't the timing extremely convenient? If so why not implement such at Laurel and GP immediately? I will tell you why because they couldn't get away with it in Florida/Maryland trainers/owners have viable options.

Hi, honey its time to sell the house and move the family, is not going to be the most chosen option.

TSG moved the goalposts(clever); they have a nightmare issue in a liberal state where the government looks at racing with discern. So they manufactured a PR story to change the narrative from dead horses because THEY screwed up, too we love the pretty horses and are going to make sure we protect them.

Those winning big purses and cashing big bets?

It's hard to be wrong about everything, but you come through consistently.

:tro:

Most of what you are saying is true. I agree with almost everything you said in terms of why they are taking these actions. But I still think that these are things that need to be done to improve the sport. I think the sport has gone way downhill because of all the drugs.

March 22 does not sound like its going to be the return to racing date...

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/r...t-santa-anita/

I just received this e-mail from National Turf 5 minutes ago: "BULLETIN:

Stronach Group reaches deal with horsemen. Racing resumes at Santa Anita on Friday, Mar. 22."

I don't know any of the details. That was all it said.

Here is a little more info on the deal: "Santa Anita is now scheduled to resume racing on Friday and a planned introduction of the elimination of Lasix will begin with next year’s crop of 2-year-olds under a deal hammered out by representations of Santa Anita and the Thoroughbred Owners of California on Saturday."

http://live.drf.com/nuggets/47358-sa...xt-year-s-2yos

So they fixed the problem?

lol

just the self inflicted one

Cold, man.


So, what was done since the latest breakdown?

Which 'all the drugs'? Name the 'drugs'. Horses receive far LESS 'drugs' than ever before.

California is using the controlled THERAPUETIC MEDICATION protocols of NUMP and has what is considered the best testing in the country.

If you're anti-Lasix, fine.. say that. But there's nothing in these 'actions' in terms of the MEDICATIONS that 'improves the sport'. In fact, they put horses at greater risk, to say nothing of the unintended consequences.

Ok, two things can be right at the same time. First, perhaps therapeutic meds are less prevalent now than at any other point. Second, cheating is as pervasive as ever and not to acknowledge such is as silly as suggesting horses are on LESS "drugs." Conflating therapeutic drugs which at their core have positive benefit and efficacy with drugs that have no place in the sport is ridiculous.

Conflating the therapeutics AND especially Lasix with illegal drugs is EXACTLY what they're doing Fred. That's the whole point.

You're spouting off nonsense without a single shred of evidence. What is your source for thinking horses are using more drugs of any kind? Give me a study. Give me historical context. You're 100% wrong. The list of permissible medications has been drilled down to a handful from hundreds. The withdrawl times have been drilled down continually from nearly immediate pre-race to 48, 72 hours or more.

I'd also like to hear what exactly you think any of these alleged medication-related innovations will do to stop the actual cheaters? All they do in reality is give the cheaters a BIGGER advantage. And, simultaneously, cost owners MORE (not less like Rupert insanely suggests)..

Meanwhile, let's get back to the original source of this chaos: TSG's avarice for unattainable handle increases in the SoCal market which resulted in a communication/leadership vacuum via the replacing of Rick Hammerle and driving out of Dennis Moore.

In addition to the current fatality tally tripped by the impossibly difficult main track surface issue, there's going to be further breakdowns because horses are almost certainly harboring bone fissures from 3 months of training/racing on the hardened strip.

Moore has the track back to the deeper, slower version that allowed only 8 and 10 breakdowns the past 2 years, so what else has to be done to fix that problem? To his credit, Tim Ritvo has been trying to source nuclear imaging machinery which can provide early detection of horses that are developing vulnerabilities.

As we learned with the NY Task Force in 2012, all areas need to be on full alert to prevent as many horses from going wrong as possible. I can't imagine what happens with the next incident. The pressure/scrutiny that will accompany the resumption of racing is going to be incredible. It's obviously impossible to easily explain the intricacies of this business to the general public.. Tough enough to explain it to people who profess to be interested or involved.

So TSG is actually doing something about the track BUT NOT going public with that because it will point finger at who is actually at fault here. They need to shut it down until December 26th by then hopefully they can get it all sorted out and the spotlight will have subsided and they may even get credit for taking this extra time to insure safety of the horses. But as usual GREED gets in the way and they are rolling the dice in an unwinnable situation. They basically are gambling that NO HORSES BREAKDOWN from now through Breeders Cup because the media will be waiting and they will not accept that the track has been fixed and horses are breaking down at a rate that has been the historic norm.

Who suggested Med use was on the rise, especially in the wake of the symposium's findings? I would bet you a dollar that Therapeutic Equine drug sales are thriving at Merck, and I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing again I don't conflate the proper administration of drugs that are indicated with cheating.

You don't stop cheaters with anything other than security, and enforcement, which concern implements, PAYS FOR and oversees such is a different more critical discussion.

The point was TSG PR move worked...That's All

Just for some perspective here, I count 12 horses that died at either Aqueduct or Belmont since December 1 while training or racing:

https://data.ny.gov/widgets/q6ts-kwhk

IMO, it's entirely possible that the 22 deaths at SA are just a statistical blip, and are not related to changes in either management or the racing surface itself.,

Does anyone have a source for the total number of horses running and training at SA, AQ, and Belmont?

I agree with you that if the cheaters keep cheating, they will have an even bigger edge if we eliminate all the legal drugs. That is 100% true. What we need to do is spend way more on security to try to catch the cheaters. In Hong Kong they have great security. I highly doubt there is anywhere close to as much cheating there as there is here. I understand that we don't have as much money to spend as they do, but we could certainly spend more than we are spending right now.

I heard that in Australia they have a machine that can test for like 10,000 different drugs. In this country we only test for around 20 different drugs. The machine in Australia costs $1 million. They should get one here. In addition, we need to hire more investigators to patrol the stable area. They should also put in tons of cameras all over the place.

I think we should either eliminate or at least cut way down on joints being injected. If a guy wants to inject an ankle, at the very least the state vet should have to do an x-ray or some type of imaging and then make the decision as to whether or not it would be safe to inject the ankle. Right now you have private vets injecting ankles, often times without even doing any imaging.

Should bute be illegal? I don't know if it should be totally illegal but I think the amount they give them right now is too much. Right now the dose they give is big enough that you often times can't tell how your horse came out of the race the day after the race. The trainer will tell you flat out(the day after the race) that he has to wait another day or two for all the bute to wear off, to really see how the horse came out of the race. Don't get me wrong. If a horse comes out of a race with a slab fracture, the bute will not mask something that extreme. But it is enough so that an ankle may not puff up for a couple of days. Guys will tell you that giving a horse bute is like a person taking a couple of aspirin. I would be fine with that if it were true but it's obviously not true. As I said before, the dose of bute they give a horse is so big that it will keep swelling down for 2-3 days. That is not the case with a person if they take 2-3 advil or aspirin.

I think we have made some positive changes already. Guys were totally abusing clenbuterol and that has practically been eliminated. That is a good thing. I think the restrictions on shock wave therapy are very positive. I think they have done a lot of good things in New York. We are making some positive changes but I think we can still do way more.

We should look at a place like Hong Kong and basically try to emulate them the best we can, when it comes to drugs and security.

With regard to lasix, I agree with most of what Dr. Arthur says. In this short interview he talks about lasix and other drugs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQw_bB9aO-w