CD - anybody see this?

[Riot]

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?

[Cannon Shell]

--Independent, standardized third-party testing and monitoring of track surfaces;

You already have this. It is called trainers and riders. They dont listen to us, why pay someone not to listen to them?
--“Supertesting” of all winning horses for more than 100 performance-enhancing drugs;

Knock yourself out CDI!!!
--Age restrictions requiring Thoroughbreds to be at least 24 calendar months of age before becoming eligible to race;

Total waste of time, absolutely strict for PR
--The freezing and storage of equine blood and urine samples to allow for retrospective testing;

Since CD doesnt test the samples, how exactly are they going to store the smaples for further testing and who is going to do the testing?
--The banning of steroids;

Already done by the state.
--Limits on the number of horses allowed to compete in certain races;

Based upon the last 2 meets at CD, not exactly an issue
--The prohibition of “milkshaking”, which results in excessive levels of total carbon dioxide in Thoroughbred racehorses;

They dont already prohibit milshakes?
--Prohibiting the transport of horses from CDI facilities for slaughter;

Not much of an issue for tracks like CD, plenty of steps down the ladder till they get DF'ed
--The banning of unsafe horseshoes, including front shoe toe grabs longer than two millimeters;

Ridiculous

--The use of low-impact riding whips with limited usage rules;

I would love to see the "limited usage rules"
--The presence of on-site medical personnel, equipment, and state-of-the-art equine ambulances;

They already have this
--Immediate online access to jockey medical histories for emergency medical personnel;

This would seem to be the jockeys problem. CD cant legally demand access to medical records can they?
--$1 million in catastrophic injury insurance coverage for jockeys;

Why not
--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;

Dont see how this can be enforced. I will not turn over any information on any of my horses injuries unless the names are withheld and the owners give me permission to do so.
--A professionally designed and installed safety rail on the inside of the dirt course;

They already have this
--Mandatory usage by all jockeys, exercise riders and other on-track personnel of safety vests and safety helmets that meet internationally acknowledged quality standards;

This rule is like 20 years old
--3/8-inch foam padding on all parts of the starting gates;

They already have this
--Significant financial support for equine retirement programs;

define signifigant
--Inspection of all horses by regulatory veterinarians prior to and following all races;

This is already done
--Review of security procedures around barns and other racetrack backstretch areas;

The topnotch security squad they have in place needs review?
--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

What exactly does this mean?
--Mandatory, independent, and complete necropsies of any horse that dies as a result of an injury sustained while racing or training at Churchill Downs.

So does this mean I cant do my own necropsies?

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

--“Supertesting” of all winning horses for more than 100 performance-enhancing drugs;

Knock yourself out CDI!!!

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying it's a good idea, a bad idea, pointless, or none of the above?

On another note, I find it interesting that people slam "the industry" for being so bad on PR, and then mock steps like this by calling them "obvious PR stunts."

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by justindew

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying it's a good idea, a bad idea, pointless, or none of the above?

On another note, I find it interesting that people slam "the industry" for being so bad on PR, and then mock steps like this by calling them "obvious PR stunts."

A good idea.

I would rather see PR on actual advances than the great majority of things on this list. But good PR isnt a bad thing. Honestly the thing that irks me the most is the shoe issue which is completely misguided. And I will be interested to see what kind of whip regulations that they will try to put in.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

Obviously I have very little knowledge of TB development, but I have read the scientific knowledge you refer to. I was just pointing out how irrelevant the 24 months thing actually is because of (a) when CD actually runs and (b) how very few May foals run in April at Keeneland and even fewer June foals run in May at CD (or Calder or Arlington, for that matter.)

[justindew]

We've all heard the argument that goes something like this:

"Horses that race as two-year-olds go on to have longer careers than horses that do NOT race as two-year-olds."

In the case of the horses that race at age two, isn't it possible that the same "good fortune" that made the earlier start possible also responsible for the fact that they have longer careers?

In other words, maybe these horses are just healthier to begin with. Which would mean the statistics are misleading.

Just a thought.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by justindew

We've all heard the argument that goes something like this:

"Horses that race as two-year-olds go on to have longer careers than horses that do NOT race as two-year-olds."

In the case of the horses that race at age two, isn't it possible that the same "good fortune" that made the earlier start possible also responsible for the fact that they have longer careers?

In other words, maybe these horses are just healthier to begin with. Which would mean the statistics are misleading.

Just a thought.

The whole 2 yo racing thing is misleading. Some horses are ready to run at 2, some arent. The problem is when people push them before they are ready, regardless of age. Too many people have opinions about young horses racing without any actual knowledge. It just sounds like a good theory. Using the no 2 year old racing theory, you would eliminate youth and high school sports in humans.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by justindew

We've all heard the argument that goes something like this:

"Horses that race as two-year-olds go on to have longer careers than horses that do NOT race as two-year-olds."

In the case of the horses that race at age two, isn't it possible that the same "good fortune" that made the earlier start possible also responsible for the fact that they have longer careers?

In other words, maybe these horses are just healthier to begin with. Which would mean the statistics are misleading.

Just a thought.

Well, it's not an "argument" I'm referring to, as much as the peer-reviewed research that actually looked at work, starts, age, then drew conclusions.

The work that the AAEP uses to support it's position statement on the racing of young horses?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

Obviously I have very little knowledge of TB development, but I have read the scientific knowledge you refer to. I was just pointing out how irrelevant the 24 months thing actually is because of (a) when CD actually runs and (b) how very few May foals run in April at Keeneland and even fewer June foals run in May at CD (or Calder or Arlington, for that matter.)

Like a politician "creating" a problem to which they already have a solution to.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Supertrack!