NYT Series: "Mangled Horses, Maimed Jockeys"

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I stopped after 6. Good grief.

Bingo!

[pointman]

The New York Times has become an embarassment and a partisan rag. It is barely hanging on by its reputation despite the fact that any past credibility it had is long gone.

The irresponsibility of this journalism loaded with accusations without fact checking is a reflection of the sorry state this rag is in. When journalists at Howard 100 News have higher standards than the Times, it becomes clear that no one should spend their money reading all the nonsense that is fit to print.

My guess is that the New York Times will be long gone before horse racing ever is.

[tector]

Here is their editorial following up on the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/op...slaughter.html

[Powderfinger]

The timing of that NY Times article really sucked, right before New Mexico's big racing day, the Sunland Derby. They should have been writing about how Mine That Bird won the race, etc. I have no doubt that it was sparked by the HBO cancellation of Luck. Just found out that it's going to be a "series" of articles in the Times, gee, I can't wait for the next installment. Apparently the first article was the most popular one of the day.

Ok, the article had many streches and downright falsehoods (c'mon, Saratoga has a higher rate than average?) The thoroughbred horse racing "industry" could virtually end the catastrophic breakdowns during live races. It would cost money and jobs, but if it's not done the whole thing could blow up. Maybe this will lead to some good, but I doubt it, how many times has that been said?

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

The timing of that NY Times article really sucked, right before New Mexico's big racing day, the Sunland Derby. They should have been writing about how Mine That Bird won the race, etc. I have no doubt that it was sparked by the HBO cancellation of Luck. Just found out that it's going to be a "series" of articles in the Times, gee, I can't wait for the next installment. Apparently the first article was the most popular one of the day.

Ok, the article had many streches and downright falsehoods (c'mon, Saratoga has a higher rate than average?) The thoroughbred horse racing "industry" could virtually end the catastrophic breakdowns during live races. It would cost money and jobs, but if it's not done the whole thing could blow up. Maybe this will lead to some good, but I doubt it, how many times has that been said?

I honestly don't think that a New York Times article had to much impact on Mew Mexico's big day of racing.

[Merlinsky]

This guy just posted a gem on the America's Best Racing FB page:

"John Smith: If theyre ever gonna change the sport of kings then the first thing they need to do is eliminate two year old races"

1) John, no, no that's not the first thing to do. It's idiotic to put a horse with a less stressed (and ultimately weaker) musculoskeletal system under the weight of a more mature animal and try to race them for the first time. Not everyone's 17+ hands a la Zenyatta. Most of them don't need to wait til 3 or 4 to grow into themselves and race soundly. Must've missed that story last month where Equine Veterinary Journal in NZ demonstrated horses that raced at 2 were more successful and raced longer. http://performancegenetics.com/2012/...-death-spiral/ Also links to an earlier Aussie study. Doesn't mean there aren't issues around youngsters, but don't add to the problem.

2) You need to sign up for the page "Let's Eat Grandma, or Let's eat, Grandma: Punctuation Saves Lives."

3) America's Best Racing still sounds like a type of feed or something.

[Powderfinger]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

This guy just posted a gem on the America's Best Racing FB page:

"John Smith: If theyre ever gonna change the sport of kings then the first thing they need to do is eliminate two year old races"

1) John, no, no that's not the first thing to do. It's idiotic to put a horse with a less stressed (and ultimately weaker) musculoskeletal system under the weight of a more mature animal and try to race them for the first time. Not everyone's 17+ hands a la Zenyatta. Most of them don't need to wait til 3 or 4 to grow into themselves and race soundly. Must've missed that story last month where Equine Veterinary Journal in NZ demonstrated horses that raced at 2 were more successful and raced longer. http://performancegenetics.com/2012/...-death-spiral/ Also links to an earlier Aussie study. Doesn't mean there aren't issues around youngsters, but don't add to the problem.

2) You need to sign up for the page "Let's Eat Grandma, or Let's eat, Grandma: Punctuation Saves Lives."

3) America's Best Racing still sounds like a type of feed or something.

There is a counter argument to the conclusion that the study you referred to , and similar studies like it, come to. The problem with these studies is that they lump all two-year-olds together because , in most cases, the horses that are racing and winning these two-year-old races are the cream of the crop - they are superior to the rest of their class and therefore will have more successful careers whether they raced at 2 or not. Remember most thoroughbreds don't even hit the race track.
I could say that a football player will have a better pro career if he plays college football, I don't think anyone would argue with me on that. But the reason that these people are playing college ball is because they are better than everyone else. I didn't play college football because I sucked. I couldn't make the college team. So to say that Brett Farve has had a more successful pro football career than I because he played college football and I didn't , wouldn't be correct. No, he is the superior athlete to me and it wouldn't matter when we started playing. I guess it all depends what you want to do with your horse. If you pay $2M at the Keenland yearling sale, you probably want to win the Kentucky Derby. I don't believe that there has ever been a derby winner who hasn't raced at 2. On the other hand, many of these Irish trainers don't start training their equines until three, because their goal is the Cheltenham Gold Cup.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

I honestly don't think that a New York Times article had to much impact on Mew Mexico's big day of racing.

but maybe it opened a few eyes in state gov't?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...e-drug-testing

im not naive enough to expect change...but its a start

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

but maybe it opened a few eyes in state gov't?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...e-drug-testing

im not naive enough to expect change...but its a start

I'm thinking it's more lip service than anything. Try to take some action before (God Forbid) the Feds stick their nose in. Because we all know how efficent things run when the Federal Government gets involved .

I don't understand this paragraph:

“What a lot of these people that are doping are doing is that they are utilizing these drugs and then stopping it 30 days, 40 days out before the horse has to race. So… when we test, the compound is out of their system,” Mares said in a telephone interview. “Out-of-competition testing would be so beneficial in catching these individuals that are actually doing the illegal doping.”


Shouldn't they be more focused on the rampant drugging of the horses that are actually racing?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

but maybe it opened a few eyes in state gov't?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...e-drug-testing

im not naive enough to expect change...but its a start

This is actually a frighteningly naive approach that will certainly not do a damn bit of good but will provide cover for the state officials that have proven to be incapable of regulating thier own jurisdiction properly.

The entire out of competition testing thing is a red herring as there are very few things that would have value on raceday that are given 40 days out. Perhaps blood doping but pretty much nothing else. The thing is that the vast majority of positives are called on normal medications at minute levels. You cant do out of competition testing on things that are legal to give. Is it a good tool to have if you have a reasonably good idea that someone is blooddoping? Sure but it doesnt solve most issues and certainly has almost no effect on soundness issues. The idea that you can penalize a trainer for excessive doses of "painkillers" or other drugs usually allowed to treat horses when you have no idea when a horse will be entered is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

When the executive Director of the racing comission says "I hope we have more positives" the problem you have runs far deeper than what goes on at the track.


And yeah that $45k increase....seriously? 45k?

[Calzone Lord]

The real and only problem horse racing has is that the takeout levels are way too excessive.

Horse racing has steadily been reduced to a widely perceived suckers game for degenerates because of sky high rakes that steadily rise more and more all the time.

The less a public knows or cares about the sport -- the worse off it will be.

A lot of industry people and execs want to "market" the sport as "entertainment" ... that is a serious mistake. They need to sell horse racing for what it was in its glory days in the late 1800's and early 1900's when the best professional horse bettors were household names. Many of the best of them came from absolutely out of nowhere -- many had little or no formal education -- most weren't people who made their money working anywhere else.