NYT: Drugs & I Want Revenge

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Interesting piece.. Pretty irresponsible and disingenuous of Drape to include these statistics and assert that the U.S. has the "worst mortality rate" without explaining to a largely ignorant readership that the majority of American (main track) racing is very different than European and Australian (turf) racing.

Thank you for bringing that up- that was the first thing I thought when I read the statistics- that he was clear to distinguish between synthetic and dirt fatality statistics in the US, but then lumped everything in Europe into one statistic.

Are turf fatality statistics for US tracks compiled and released anywhere?

Though I did find it very interesting that Northrop felt the owners deserved more transparency about treatments and medication an animal is getting, but the betting public doesn't. As the lolcats would say, dood, srsly?

[VOL JACK]

IEAH, Lanzman, Jeff Mullett, and Dicky Dutrow......what a great team.

[gamblin4ever]

I don't know much about the inner workings of horse racing (ownership,training). But,it sounds as if IEAH made a bad investment, purchased in March and horse starts ailing in April. The vets make it sound like a normal day leading up to the race with the work that was done on him.
Rules should be in place for horses running clean on race day. No meds in the horses system at all. If found in system fines,penalties and/or suspensions enforced. Please advise if i'm missing something.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gamblin4ever

I don't know much about the inner workings of horse racing (ownership,training). But,it sounds as if IEAH made a bad investment, purchased in March and horse starts ailing in April. The vets make it sound like a normal day leading up to the race with the work that was done on him.
Rules should be in place for horses running clean on race day. No meds in the horses system at all. If found in system fines,penalties and/or suspensions enforced. Please advise if i'm missing something.

Define clean. No meds in a horses system? Define no meds. What levels? What limits? It just isnt that simple.

[gamblin4ever]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Define clean. No meds in a horses system? Define no meds. What levels? What limits? It just isnt that simple.

No lasix,Bute or anything. No drugs at all. Like in my 1st post i dont know if these are truly needed,how do they help a horse or anything the like. But it seems to me that a horse that bleeds should not run until the problem is fixed instead of given Lasix as example. Couldn't we have rules like Europe no drugs in system on race day. I admit i don't know much about that stuff but horses racing w/o drugs seems best to me. Thanks for your input Chuck as you know a heck of alot more than me on the subject.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gamblin4ever

No lasix,Bute or anything. No drugs at all. Like in my 1st post i dont know if these are truly needed,how do they help a horse or anything the like. But it seems to me that a horse that bleeds should not run until the problem is fixed instead of given Lasix as example. Couldn't we have rules like Europe no drugs in system on race day. I admit i don't know much about that stuff but horses racing w/o drugs seems best to me. Thanks for your input Chuck as you know a heck of alot more than me on the subject.

The problem is that you need to have some baselines, guidelines, etc. The tests now are sophisticated enough to pick up minute doses of just about anything if they are looking for it. The problem with the rules is that in many cases finding something in a horses system and its ability to actual affect performance are totally different animals. What we are doing now is simply detecting the presence of a substance with no regard to its effectiveness. Which is not only a huge waste of time and resources but gives off the false impression that every horse is pumped full of drugs every time there is a positive. I am NOT saying that some arent or that certain trainers and/or vets arent going over the line. But all this nonsense about eliminating Lasix is so far off base that I cant believe we continue to even debate it. Lasix is an effective treatment for the deficiency of bleeding in horses. There is no one reason why horses bleed. There really is no prevention. And to want to ban its use, especially when it finally has a university test that proves what we already knew, it works, is spiteful and damaging for the horses. The idea that bleeding is some how bred into or can be bred out of horses is stupid.

I also dont believe that European racing and especially Australian racing is all that clean either. The majority of "hops" that have been used over the years were developed and first used outside of the US. The only place that probably has as close to totally clean racing (in terms of medication) as any place is Hong Kong. And there is virtually no way to duplicate their set up.

[randallscott35]

Horses do just fine without lasix in Europe Chuck.

[gamblin4ever]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem is that you need to have some baselines, guidelines, etc. The tests now are sophisticated enough to pick up minute doses of just about anything if they are looking for it. The problem with the rules is that in many cases finding something in a horses system and its ability to actual affect performance are totally different animals. What we are doing now is simply detecting the presence of a substance with no regard to its effectiveness. Which is not only a huge waste of time and resources but gives off the false impression that every horse is pumped full of drugs every time there is a positive. I am NOT saying that some arent or that certain trainers and/or vets arent going over the line. But all this nonsense about eliminating Lasix is so far off base that I cant believe we continue to even debate it. Lasix is an effective treatment for the deficiency of bleeding in horses. There is no one reason why horses bleed. There really is no prevention. And to want to ban its use, especially when it finally has a university test that proves what we already knew, it works, is spiteful and damaging for the horses. The idea that bleeding is some how bred into or can be bred out of horses is stupid.

I also dont believe that European racing and especially Australian racing is all that clean either. The majority of "hops" that have been used over the years were developed and first used outside of the US. The only place that probably has as close to totally clean racing (in terms of medication) as any place is Hong Kong. And there is virtually no way to duplicate their set up.

Thanks for explaining, it just seems too many trainers use Lasix on horses to believe that many horses bleed even on FTS. Thanks again for explaining the reasoning.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

. And there is virtually no way to duplicate their set up.

Explain??

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Thank you for bringing that up- that was the first thing I thought when I read the statistics- that he was clear to distinguish between synthetic and dirt fatality statistics in the US, but then lumped everything in Europe into one statistic.

Are turf fatality statistics for US tracks compiled and released anywhere?

Though I did find it very interesting that Northrop felt the owners deserved more transparency about treatments and medication an animal is getting, but the betting public doesn't. As the lolcats would say, dood, srsly?

I doubt the betting public would have any clue what to do with the information or how you would control the validity of the information in the first place? Wouldnt the ability to further abuse the system be greater by allowing trainers/owners/vets to create a shadow of a doubt on claiming horses by taking a bunch of xrays and injecting a bunch of things before a horse dropping in class runs, even if wasnt done or needed? How would you police the vets to insure that they were indeed doing the work on the horse listed?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I doubt the betting public would have any clue what to do with the information or how you would control the validity of the information in the first place? Wouldnt the ability to further abuse the system be greater by allowing trainers/owners/vets to create a shadow of a doubt on claiming horses by taking a bunch of xrays and injecting a bunch of things before a horse dropping in class runs, even if wasnt done or needed? How would you police the vets to insure that they were indeed doing the work on the horse listed?

I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.

Assuming that all this information deserves to be made public (a point that I don't concede), where would you put all this information? If we were to include a horse's vet records in the PPs, the DRF would probably cost $100. Also, a lot of the meds are given 24-48 hours before the race, so how would that disclosure work?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Assuming that all this information deserves to be made public (a point that I don't concede), where would you put all this information? If we were to include a horse's vet records in the PPs, the DRF would probably cost $100. Also, a lot of the meds are given 24-48 hours before the race, so how would that disclosure work?

Can you imagine the lawsuits that will arise when a guy claims a horse who doesnt pan out and his lawyer starts picking apart the previous trainers/owners vet reports?

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Can you imagine the lawsuits that will arise when a guy claims a horse who doesnt pan out and his lawyer starts picking apart the previous trainers/owners vet reports?

I'd just sue the insurance company.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'd just sue the insurance company.

They are preying on our sick and elderly...oops wrong section.

This guy writes a nice piece on the article

http://fuguefortinhorns.blogspot.com...ork-times.html

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'd just sue the insurance company.

LOL. I'm not falling for it this time!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.

I am not sure I agree that this should be public information. Does the NFL tell you what treatments or shots the players got each week? Hell they outright lie on a required injury list all the time. I understand that with people there are privacy issues but honestly I dont think that opening up vet records to the public will do anything but create more controversy where there isnt anything controversial. Not to mention who exactly is going to collect and disseminate the records? People who bet horseraces always feel slighted but when you compare the amount of info available now as compared to what was available in the past there is no comparison. In my other post what I was saying is that there is almost no thing that can be gleaned from the information so why bother? The fact that I dont think that anyone but the owner or trainer should be privy to the info is another topic.