Quote:
|
Originally Posted by philcski
While I don't think its a bad idea in principle, how many horses would it truly exclude? It's not like you see a ton of may foals running in april. 28-30 months might actually make an impact on horse longevity.
|
True, that in actuality, considering CDI's date, few would probably be affected.
However, this stance is
completely opposite the recommendation of the bulk of scientific knowledge we currently have indicating that early racing imparts soundness and longevity to a TB racing career.
I believe it to be a bad idea for the health of the racing TB in both principle and practice.
---------------
-- Independent, standardized third-party testing and monitoring of track surfaces;
If they use some physicists and biomechanical engineers, good. If somebody's brother starts a company, bad.
--“Supertesting” of all winning horses for more than 100 performance-enhancing drugs;
Great
--Age restrictions requiring Thoroughbreds to be at least 24 calendar months of age before becoming eligible to race;
Bad
--The freezing and storage of equine blood and urine samples to allow for retrospective testing;
Good
--The banning of steroids;
Eh, big deal, little effect
--Limits on the number of horses allowed to compete in certain races;
Good idea perhaps for some baby races
--The prohibition of “milkshaking”, which results in excessive levels of total carbon dioxide in Thoroughbred racehorses;
Hey, aren't we supposed to be there already?
--Prohibiting the transport of horses from CDI facilities for slaughter;
Nice, but who will take them? What ancillary support groups will be developed, engaged, financed? How will CDI take responsiblity for enforcement of this?
--The banning of unsafe horseshoes, including front shoe toe grabs longer than two millimeters;
Good
--The use of low-impact riding whips with limited usage rules;
Good
--The presence of on-site medical personnel, equipment, and state-of-the-art equine ambulances;
Should be there already, no?
--Immediate online access to jockey medical histories for emergency medical personnel;
Great
--$1 million in catastrophic injury insurance coverage for jockeys;
Say what? <vbg> ???
--Mandatory and uniform reporting of equine injuries to the Equine Injury Database System, thereby assisting in the compilation of statistics and trends to improve safety conditions around the country;
At least someone is cooperating!
--A professionally designed and installed safety rail on the inside of the dirt course;
Great.
--Mandatory usage by all jockeys, exercise riders and other on-track personnel of safety vests and safety helmets that meet internationally acknowledged quality standards;
Isn't that supposed to be there already?
--3/8-inch foam padding on all parts of the starting gates;
Ditto?
--Significant financial support for equine retirement programs;
See no horses to slaughter, above. Funding source?
--Inspection of all horses by regulatory veterinarians prior to and following all races;
Good
--Review of security procedures around barns and other racetrack backstretch areas;
Will anything change?
--Continued maintenance of protocols for the treatment of horses that have been injured during racing or training, to ensure the most humane treatment possible; and
Good, but again, should be state of the art already ...
--Mandatory, independent, and complete necropsies of any horse that dies as a result of an injury sustained while racing or training at Churchill Downs.
Great, if one can legally enforce (CDI vs insurance company vs owner) - who will finance? Where will it be done? Who will transport body and pay to get it to LDDC?