NY Task Force on Racehorse Health & Safety Report, Reccos
 

AS OPPOSED TO TIMES' AGENDA-DRIVEN NONSENSE, THIS FROM PRESS RELEASE:

During its comprehensive examination, the Task Force found that NYRA's organizational veterinary structure was inherently conflicted by reporting to an entity (the Racing Office) whose function is inconsistent with deliberate and careful equine risk management practice. Other structural shortcomings with NYRA's veterinary practice include: a lack of uniform protocols and procedures among track veterinarians, a failure to standardize risk factors to assess racehorses' fitness to run, and no uniformity in veterinary care recordkeeping or proper use of existing veterinary practice management software.

The State Racing and Wagering Board and NYRA will be directed to take these actions:

• Establish an Office of the Equine Medical Director to oversee horse safety

• Create an independent veterinary practice structure within NYRA which will put the health of the horses first and which reporting directly to the chief executive officer of NYRA

• Establish an anonymous reporting mechanism for jockeys to report health or safety violations without fear of reprisal

• Prohibit Clenbuterol within 21 days of a race

• Prohibit Methylprednisolone (DepoMedrol®) within 15 days of the date of a race

• Prohibiting all other intra-articular corticosteroids within seven days of a race

• Prohibiting all other systemic corticosteroids within five days of a race

• Requiring trainers to maintain and records of corticosteroid administrations and notify the Stewards in writing within 48 hours of all intra-articular corticosteroid administrations

• Extending the claiming rule that voids claims in the event a claimed horse dies on the race track to make a claim voidable within 1 hour of the conclusion of a race if the horse is vanned off the track

• Amending the economic proportionality claiming rule to allow a purse-to-claim ratio no greater than 1.6-to-1

• Requiring horse claimants be notified within 48 hours of any intra-articular administration of corticosteroids to the claimed horse in the 30 days prior to the race

• Expanding out-of-competition drug testing to include corticosteroids and clenbuterol

• Improving documentation of findings of fatal injuries, including the development of standard protocols for handling of horses sustaining fatal injuries

• Requiring testing laboratory accreditation

• Formalizing necropsy procedures

NYRA will also examine the possibility of installing of a synthetic surface on the inner track at Aqueduct.

REPORT: http://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/documents/Report.pdf

Executive summary: http://www.governor.ny.gov/assets/do...iveSummary.pdf

NY Task Force on Racehorse Health & Safety Report, Reccos
 

A very ambitious set of recommendations, indeed. Let's see what develops during the implementation phase, and let's hope this isn't just paving of the road to hell.

Crist predictably excellent summary: Even-handed Aqueduct breakdown report disappoints Chicken Littles

The authors – three of whom (Alan Foreman, Dr. Scott Palmer, and Dr. Mary Scollay) spoke at length during the press conference – also debunked many of the theories that have been advanced about the breakdowns, particularly by those who believe that various widely accepted therapeutic medications are at the heart of the problem.

Foreman specifically noted that there was no correlation between the the use of phenylbutazone or furosemide (Salix) and the breakdowns, and he rejected the perception that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications are inherently dangerous: “These are not, as have been referred to by others, ‘powerful painkillers,’ ” a reference to The New York Times’s boilerplate language for them.

He also noted that of 7,106 samples tested from horses competing last winter during the period of increased breakdowns, there was not a single positive for an illegal or prohibited medication, and only five positives for overages of therapeutic drugs.

Nobody is going to be entirely pleased with the report: the state did not get its desired red meat on NYRA’s supposed transgressions; NYRA may find some of the recommendations overly critical; and some horsemen will grumble about increased record-keeping and intrusiveness. That’s a pretty good sign that the report was indeed independent of undue political influence and probably makes sense.

That’s what can happen when you give well-informed experts, rather than power brokers and zealots, the time and resources to investigate fully and fairly and make constructive decisions based on facts and science. It might even be the way to run racing going forward.

So with the benefit of the actual report released and the rational, intelligent approach it took, the above NYT piece is rendered moot and shown up for what it was, more shameless, broadside character assassination intended to further the in-house agenda.

The report sure doesn't paint a pretty picture of what is happening on the backside. Clenbuterol every day?

Unfortunately the NY Times will never inform their readers of that.

I guess I'm so used to the vitriol and b.s. and games people play on these issues, then something fair presents itself, and I'm more than a little relieved. Even if it's critical, I'm so grateful that it's not tainted by the biases we've been dealing with. There are actually people trying to make things better that aren't being manipulated for maximum drama. I think if we get fair criticism and show we can adapt to it, that speaks volumes for our future. It's also a stark (and much needed) contrast to our portrayal by Cuomo and the NY Times.

Not unique to New York. And not being done by every outfit certainly.

I wasn't trying to imply either, just talking about the sport in general. If this is going on at the biggest and best circuit , I shudder to think about places lower on the ladder.

And certainly the outfits that give it daily are actually twice a day....

You think greater % of players in the NFL are on HGH and synthetic steroids or Div 3 football?

Clenbuterol side effects are wildly overblown. Personally I dont use it except for horses with acute lung issues because I never saw the benefit of giving it everyday. I tried it everyday on 6 horses for about 3-4 months years ago and honestly didnt see any difference at all.

Not to mention it is really expensive, especially if you are putting your whole barn on it everyday.

But isn't that a big issue, trainers just milking owners for more dollars. Why would you try something that is expensive for 3-4 months without knowing the effect? Maybe the effects are overblown, but the point remains.

Honest question because I don't know, is there a mark up for trainers on vet bills? When I was an AC guy, in addition to labor, it is part of the business to mark up the price on any parts. That is why I ask.

There is zero trainers markup on the vast majority of vet bills. Some big trainers may get a kickback of some sort because of the large volume but for the most part the vets bill the owners directly.

Why would I try something without knowing the effect? Well how are you going to know anything without trying it? There was no reason then to think it wouldnt be beneficial and truthfully there is very little data now to suggest that it is harmful.

When you say there is no markup on the vast majority, does that mean there is some?

It isn't like you are the first to try? Is there no sharing of info in this sport for the welfare of the horse? Would you have tried if you had to pay for it? Did the owner agree to this beforehand? I'm just trying to figure out how all this works.

Does very little data to suggest it is harmful mean there is some? I just don't get this liberal attitude about drug use on animals. It just seems like the idea is lets just stick them and see where it leads. I'm certainly not talking about you specifically, but the entire industry.

I like Chuck have used it at certain levels before realizing i see no advantage in using it everyday..I do use it when a horse scopes bad along with some antibiotics to help the horse through the ordeal. I have in the pass noticed some horses that we claimed off known users of clen to have some sort of "crash" when no longer on the drug..

There are 6000+ licensed trainers and I dont know what everyone does but as I said the vast majority have their owners billed directly.

The entire welfare of the horse approach is skewed in these arguments. The vast majority of vet work is either done in response to a specific issue or is preventative medicine. Since most of the trainers are using vets that work for other trainers as well (very few if any private vets exist anymore) there of course is sharing of info. However for the most part trainers keep quiet about what they are doing though for the most part it isnt that much different than everyone else. There was a big advantage about 12-15 years ago for trainers that were treating horses for ulcers. Why give that advantage up? For the most part we all train on the same tracks, use the same facilities, use the same vets, have the same pool of workers to draw from, etc. However we don't have the same owners or access to horses. So when you think that you are doing something better than others are you tend to keep that to yourself. Truth is there have been so many advances in medicine and technology that trainers are far more aware of issues that used to be ignored. Ulcer treatment, EPM meds, wormers, etc are all pretty much standard fare yet 10 years ago only a few guys were using treatments for these effectively. Just imagine the advantage you would have if you could go back 40 years ago and use your speed figures? Would you be giving them out?

You tend to treat my responses as a cross examination. Very little data means that there is very little data that I have heard about. Mostly there is theories but in horseracing theories often pass for facts. I'm leaving open the possibily that there may be some data about the negative health issues that clenbuterol may create that I am not aware of but as far as I know there arent.

There are negatives to virtually every act known to man. Using clenbuterol on a daily basis was done to see of we can possible keep the horses from getting a lung infections which are a nagging issue in horses for a variety of reasons. It is debatable if it does this effectively enough to justify the expense. It is also debatable if the other supposed benefits are really there. Does it work to clear a horses lungs in the case of respiratory illness? Very well. Is it worth doing all the time? Not in my opinion. But doing so doesn't make it wrong either. I'm fine with a 21 day withdrawl period as the way I use it would rarely be an issue. But I dont think a 21 day withdrawl or a 30 day withdrawl period will have any effect on breakdown rates at all.

And despite all the advances, we can't get horses to race more than every 5 or 6 weeks, at most. Call me skeptical that all these drugs do more good than harm.

Seriously? If you are talking about the top horses it is completely by design. Blame Bobby Frankel and then Pletcher for that. Everybody reads sheets now, owners, trainers, racing managers, etc and as soon as a horse runs a big number the first thing they want to do is not run. Not because there is anything wrong with the horses but they want to "manage" them and avoid "regression" so they "give them time" and "space" races. Not to mention that once you get through a few conditions it is easy to run out of places to run. It is stupid and more harmful to horses than anything especially young ones because they dont gain experience training but hey dont blame the rest of us for that.

Look at the B and C level circuits and tell me horses can't run every 2 or 3 weeks. Sure there are guys like Walder who will wait 2 months with a 15000 claimer but he isnt not running because the horse cant, he is waiting for the absolute perfect condition. The fact that the condition books have changed with the normal claiming ladder mostly abandoned and the rise of the conditioned claimer has far more to do with horses running less than "drugs". How many times do you see trainers run a nw2 horse in a nw3 race? Almost never. So instead of running a horse in a open 10000 claimer and if they cant cut it drop to a 7500 race like it always was when we didnt have so many options, you wait for the 10000 nw2 race. Because the pool of horses for a nw2 race is much smaller than the pool for an open 10000 race it may take longer for the race to fill especially the two turn dirt races.

For the most part normal, everyday horses have no problem racing every few weeks. The idea that "drugs" have a negative effect on horses or doesnt allow them to run as much as they used to is stupid.

Even lower level horses don't run nearly as often as they once did. I realize it is impossible to discuss drug use with trainers. I just forget sometimes.

Oh that's right, I forgot that you already know everything about the subject and all us trainers are just too biased to discuss it.

You make statements like "Lower level horses dont run as much as they used to" and I am supposed to take that as proof that somehow "drugs" are the chief cause ignoring all of the other changes that have occured in the game?

The irony of your "impossible to discuss drugs with trainers" insult is that you come off as a typical internet troll who would rather gossip with other likeminded rumor mongers as opposed to trying to educate yourself on the topic. Suit yourself but people who are willing to not look at other points of view especially coming from trainers who you know are credible on the subject and have a far greater knowledge base are as much of a problem in this sport as the issues themselves.

I am probably as conservative in use of meds as most trainers but understand that racehorses have plenty of issues that must be dealt with especially with the lower level type of horses with which I often have in my barn. There are several owners here that could attest to that. This topic is so warped in the publics view because of misinformation and false innuendo that is taken as fact. Congrats on following the company line. I'm interested in finding out after all is said and done and this big crackdown on "drugs" fails to stem the tide on all the negative trends in the sport what will you blame then?

Okay Chuck, I'm just a troll.

I have an average of 20 horses in my barn throughout the year. We are heading into the 10th month of the year and i have 81 starts. Do the math, not a good stat of starts per stalls..Problem here in La. is there are to many horses at mdn and low level claimers. I would love to run these low level claimers every three weeks, but it's nearly impossible..

You ask questions but dont like the answers so it is impossible to discuss drugs with trainers? You have an agenda against drugs despite seemingly not understanding a great deal about what you are against. You dont respond to points brought up in posts but either pick them apart looking for exactness in quotes or simply dismiss them. Agree or disagree? What point have I made that was untrue or unreasonable? The fact of the matter is that without defining "drugs", being for or against them is an inane argument.

Are you against surgeries? Are you against ulcer or digestive tract medications? Are you against Adequan/legend/polyglycan or other drugs that help maintain joint health? Are you against anti-inflamatory drugs? Are you against nsaids? Are you against antibiotics? Are you against allergy medications? Are you against immune stimulants? Are you against injected vitamins? Are you against electrolytes? What about circulatory drugs that help horses with foot issues? What about medications for colic or founder? IRAP therapy? Please tell me where do you draw the line between ok and not ok? Sound silly? Well 95% of positive tests come from medications like these and it has nothing to do with the "culture of drugs" and way more to do with the insane way that the sport is regulated in regards to allowable levels, withdrawl times and a total lack of transparency by state racing comissions and labs.

What exactly is the plan of the paceadvantage platform? Stop treating issues? Ignore them? Go holistic? Faith heal? Or that nonsense I hear all the time, give them time off? So everytime anything goes wrong with a horse we just give them time off? We have complaints that horses dont race enough already but we are supposed to just keep them in a stall or turn out in a field till all is well? Please enlighten me as to what all the non-trainers have come up with to solve the drug problem.

Paceadvantage platform? You do know I'm just a poster there only, right? I can moderate posts when people get out of line, nothing more. I have nothing else to do with that site other than it is the one where I post most.

As for the drug thing, did you notice nobody here posted the Bloodhorse article about 2yo horses racing without Lasix? I'm quite sure you didn't miss it. Turns out a very small percentage of those horses showed the slightest trace of bleeding. Yet, we are told it is needed in the vast majority of horses as a preventive drug.

Many trainers (and I have no idea if that includes you) do what the vet tells them to do, nothing more. They just echo what they are told as if experts in equine medicine. Believe it or not, there are plenty of unscrupulous vets out there that use trainers and do unnecessary things. My opinion is there are way too many tracks running too many days, and because of that we have plenty of unqualified people training horses.

There is a lot of ugly stuff that goes on with horses, and that was all my original post was meant to say. I mean how can you possibly defend giving horses clenbuterol every day without even knowing if it would have benefits or not? That is just sad. We can all bitch and moan about the articles in the New York Times and in the NYRA report, but the fact is there is plenty of dirty laundry to be aired, even if all that was written isn't completely true or exaggerated.

Since you made it personal, lets make a deal. I'll stop complaining about drug use when you stop whining about other trainers getting too many horses, i.e. they should give them to you instead.

You made it personal dude. For some reason people like you think that trainers can just be insulted without recourse because we are all drug addled, cheats or idiots depending on what our win % is. I would think that I have established the credentials to speak on topics concerning thorghbred racehorses, matters of their health, proper and ethical treatment of racehorses and matters pertaining to the racing office without being disregarded as a biased moron. Not to mention a willingness to speak frankly about topics that many in the game want to ignore.

You want to bring up the 2 yo lasix topic as though we are doing some sort of study here and are ignoring pertinent information. Only someone who is frighteningly naive would think that the people who are promoting the elimination of lasix would be coming up with any other conclusion than they arent seeing much bleeding. But of course young, well bred 2 year olds are of course the least likely horses to bleed but hey you have a handful of non bleeders so of course you are entirely correct about everything you say about lasix.

Many trainers do what the vet tells them to do? Or is it the trainers tell the vets what to do? Of course you learn these things by reading them in reports and other massaged sources of information and us people who are actually doing the job everyday have practical experience and forgive me for laughing when you want to lecture me on vet/trainer practices.

Your opinion on way too many tracks running too many days leading to too many unqualified people is interesting but since the thread was originally about breakdowns at NYRA which is more or less the top circuit in the country I guess your solution wouldnt have had much impact right? Because I'm doubt there are a bunch of guys at River Downs that chose to go there instead of Saratoga and hey lets just get rid of them and drugs and everything will be great again? Yeah sure.

There is a lot of ugly stuff that goes on with a lot of things. The idea that more is being done now than in the past is nonsense. The fact is that there is less bs happening now than there was years ago but because of advances in information availability the perception is that the sky is falling. You know as well as I do that 20 years ago the frog juice positives get no play in most of the thoroughbred world. There was a similar scandal in the 80's with elephant juice (etorphine) and yet I bet virtually no one even remembers that. They ran ringers at NYRA in the 70's. The top jockeys in NY were implicated on the cover of Sport Illustrated for fixing races and Vasquez was suspended a year. There was a guy named Preston King, check him out. Oscar Barrera. Gaspar. This is just in NY. What about the insurance scandals? What about Dr Harthill?

How can I defend giving clenbuterol? Seriously? You have zero knowledge of the medication or even racehorses in general but you are going to question me? How can i defend it? Easy, there is nothing wrong with giving horses clenbuterol. The funny thing is children with asthma are given clenbuterol, it is hardly a horse specific drug. I guess all those doctors are reprehensible as well?

Yeah and my opinion that the concentration of all the good horses in NY with a select few trainers is me actually secretly lobbying for those horses. It couldnt be common sense or an understanding of a history of the game or anything like that. Just jealousy. Because you know trainers can never voice an opinion on anything concerning horseracing because we are biased or jealous.

Before I read the rest of this diatribe, where did I insult you and make it personal before you called me a troll? Did saying I couldn't discuss drugs with a trainer really considered an insult?

I notice you ignored the PA thing. At least for once you realized you were off base.

I make several points and you act as though you are above discussing the topic with me because I am a trainer? How is that not insulting?

You ignored virtually every point that I made and I didnt call you a troll, I said you come off like one. You are the one who is concerned with semantics. As for the paceadvantage thing who really cares? It was an off the cuff attempt at humor.

As for being off base that's nonsense. If I made some silly remark about speed figures or something that you have intimate knowledge of I find it hard to believe that you wouldnt be quick to comment or correct me. Seriously what did I say about the topic that you found to be incorrect?

This all started because I mentioned about using clenbuterol every day without knowing for sure it would be beneficial. If you don't see anything wrong with that, there just wasn't much to discuss because we'll never agree.

How is giving clenbuterol to a kid that has asthma remotely close to giving it to a horse because it might be beneficial, and doing it every day? If you want to argue that point, you'll need to do it with those that wrote the report. I don't think they are on any side of the drug issue. They just presented the facts.

Really, this sums up the whole thing:

You know nothing about me, or what I know, but on the other hand think you know everything about every subject. I know you are the tsar of Derby Trail. From now on I'll bow down to your greatness.

This is an incredible copout.

Your statement that I'm wrong and you are right about the use of clenbuterol on a daily basis drips with irony considering your last paragraph.

I'm not the one that said clenbuterol should not be used every day. You obviously don't do it anymore, so it seems you actually agree.

"Investigators became concerned about clenbuterol when they found that some horses were getting it almost continually from their private veterinarians. Clenbuterol is approved only for the short-term treatment of respiratory disease, and is very effective. But when used in large amounts over a lengthy period, it builds muscle and can also cause health problems or death. "

No actually you seemed to infer that I was wrong for using it without knowing for sure if it would be beneficial.

Personally I wouldn't do that, particularly for three or four months. Your owners told you it was OK I assume. They paid for it, not me. As an owner, I'd be pissed to find out I paid for the every day administration of a drug that does what the report purports long term. I'd be a bad owner though. I would ask too many questions.

Let's just say that that particular owner was far more concerned with winning races than he is with pretty much anything else.

I have no problem with owners asking questions. Educated people are far better decision makers than people who are informed via Joe Drape.

The entire tone of that recent NYT piece that all these poor owners are being duped into paying huge vet bills by trainers is hyperbole. The truth is that we arent paid by most people to train their horse, we are paid to win races hence the main method of selecting trainers is via win %. You wont find that in any reports or studies. But when a large majority of owners continue to use a single qualification to choose trainers (win %) they are more or less endorsing whatever methods tht trainer employs. I find it hard to believe that people are stunned when they get huge vet bills from leading trainers.

Personally I prefer to train for people who have a clue as to what is going on and care about their horses. I could have twice as many horses as I have now pretty easily but too many people dont pay and what can be worse for your horse than having a trainer cutting corners because they dont have enough money to do things right?

Just to be clear I wasn't talking about the NYT article. I haven't even read the last one after the first two. They are full of crap for the most part.

For the record, if I did own horses, you are the kind of guy I would hire. The last guys I would hire would be people like Pletcher or Asmussen.

Hey Chuck. You made a sale! You gave this guy too much of your time, though I enjoyed reading your take on things. So all was not lost.

Yeah Chuck you made an awesome case again. That guy is a complete lack of talent hair brain, probably doesnt bet or even follow racing much.

BTW if you double up on the adequan and the Clen in Pa. they will never catch you. Clen works really well and that adequan mixed in with some steriods bute and "canes" is a terrific cocktail.

I enjoyed the conversation and mutual acknowledgement of e-cred.

Some trainers are quite susceptible to gossip and old wives tales, and will try anything "believing" it works, and many vets are willing to sell them anything, too. You should see what some people do to horses in all sports to win. It's shocking.

It's like lasix, steroids, artificial surfaces - few base decisions solely upon emperical evidence. Emotion and 'belief" and "I know what I know" drives most of it.