Kentucky's ongoing attempt to end racing in state proceeds..

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Racehorses get hurt alot. The vast majority of these injuries are minor and are easily treated. When people talk about banning medications and they talk about giving horses rest as opposed to "drugs" I wonder what world they live in.

Is it that black-and-white with even minor injuries where the use of medication totally replaces any form of rest? Shouldn't the two be used in conjunction?

Anyways, the type of "rest" I was talking about was an "off season" of sorts. While horse racing can certainly be successful as a year-round venture, can it do so using the same group of horses the entire time? Can any individual racehorse stay in full race training and competition continuously? Is it feasible to stratify the horse population so that one group of horses (eg low-level claimers, stakes horses) get "down time" while another is actively running?

Why do racehorses get hurt alot? A huge factor is the number of miles they accumulate in a finite period of time.

Most people don't know that we have no steadfast rules concerning withdrawl times in most jurisdictions. The Pletcher incident in the BC a few years ago where he and the vet asked the state vet if they would be ok giving a medication 18 days before the race and were told they would be and yet the horse still got a positive test should be a great indicator of where we stand. The RMTC has made some progress in this area but is still a longway from being complete. People also don't realize that a positive test does not necessarily mean that the drug in question had any effect on the performance of the horse but rather is just the detection of a drug above a certain number which often arbitrarily assigned.

On the other hand, how many "therapeutic" positives are the result of indiscriminate "pre-racing"? Take the Tom Amoss case from this year. Five positives for the same medication in the span of a few weeks. Or Kiarin McLaughlin at a fall Keeneland meet a couple of years ago with multiple positives for an inhalant. Superficially, does this look like bad luck or mismanagement? Should the public reasonably be expected to accept that a significant number of horses in the same barn need to be on the same medication (never mind still be entered to race)?

Isn't more likely that trainers in these instances are being too aggressive with their "pre-race" regimens? In the event of a positive and subsequent punishment, are the regulators really unjustly persecuting the offendors? Who is making the sport (and medications) look bad in these instances?

So I want to know what am I supposed to do when a horse has an issue? If a horse acts colicky should I not give her medication and just hope that it is a little gas because if I give her banamine she wont be able to run the following week. If Bodemeister grabs a quarter working a week before the Derby should Baffert not treat him or go to the local church and pour some holy water on it? Or just scratch and turn him out? Because the evil Bute and Banamine would be among the meds called for in these situations.

If the plan is to adopt a zero-tolerance policy, then racing probably can't operate. Not sure if that's what's being called for. If threshold levels of therapeutic medications are still utilized, then the scenarios you suggest should be comfortably handled with the horse's health put foremost.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Is it that black-and-white with even minor injuries where the use of medication totally replaces any form of rest? Shouldn't the two be used in conjunction?

Of course they are used in conjunction depending on the injury and severity of it. There are also alternate therapies that are used like ultrasound, ice, hosing, etc.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Anyways, the type of "rest" I was talking about was an "off season" of sorts. While horse racing can certainly be successful as a year-round venture, can it do so using the same group of horses the entire time? Can any individual racehorse stay in full race training and competition continuously? Is it feasible to stratify the horse population so that one group of horses (eg low-level claimers, stakes horses) get "down time" while another is actively running?

While a break can be helpful some horses do terrible when turned out. Is it better to give a horse a break from training occasionally? Sure. But not all horses that are at the track are in fulltime training.

I dont think it is possible to have 2 sets of horses alternate down time because it is hard to determine the timing of when a horse is going to improve or go off form. While some stakes horses might get mandatory rest because of the design of their future schedule I dont know anyone who would take a regular horse out of training that was thriving and doing well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Why do racehorses get hurt alot? A huge factor is the number of miles they accumulate in a finite period of time.

Horses get hurt because they are big, strong animals who are fed high test diets and honed to stay on edge. They have skinny legs and big bodies and most of the time those legs arent exactly perfectly conformed. They may have club or flat feet, be back or over at the knee, may be cow or sickle hocked. When thier foot strikes the ground the concussion isnt sent exactly up the leg through the foot in a straight line but correspondnt to the physical makeup of the feet and legs. This leads to certain area's getting more stress. A horse who is back at the knee is much more likely to sustain a knee chip than one who isnt. A horse who has flat feet is much more likely to get sore feet than one who doesn't. Horses with long pasterns are much more likely to run down/have suspensory issues than one who isn't. The surfaces that we train on in the best of times are hardly uniform from day to day, and from hour to hour, depending on the weather or even the amount of traffic on the track.

That doesnt even take into consideration internal issues like stomach issues, colic, tying up, etc.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

On the other hand, how many "therapeutic" positives are the result of indiscriminate "pre-racing"? Take the Tom Amoss case from this year. Five positives for the same medication in the span of a few weeks. Or Kiarin McLaughlin at a fall Keeneland meet a couple of years ago with multiple positives for an inhalant. Superficially, does this look like bad luck or mismanagement? Should the public reasonably be expected to accept that a significant number of horses in the same barn need to be on the same medication (never mind still be entered to race)?

I cant speak for these 2 incidences specifically but as I said before often you believe that you are playing within the rules and dont find out that they changed the speed limit on you till you get the notice that you aren't.

What the public doesnt understand is that most horses have similar issues that are treated close to the same way. Sure a valuable horse may get to have expensive therapies in conjunction with a medicine regimine that a cheaper, less valauble horse doesnt get but it isnt that different than people who have bad backs. The treatments are pretty similar.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

If you cant see that racing in different jurisdictions in this country let alone other countries is different than you just arent trying very hard.

At the medication summit at Belmont last Summer we were given materials that showed US horses were making more starts per year than England, Ireland and France. I dont think any other countries were included. Of course when asked the foreign participants said that because their racing schedules and systems were different than ours hence the fewer starts. Naturally they unwittingly made the point that so many of us have been making, that racing is different in different places and as such simply comparing them is a bit of an apples and oranges argument.

There was a reason that lasix was legalized, it isnt just some nationwide plot by vets and trainers. To act like we can simply ignore the issue and turnback the clock is myopic. Perhaps we can revive Oscar and have him perform some of his pre-1995 magic?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

I don't know if that's true about horses starting only 3 or 4 times a year in Ireland and France. That sounds a little low to me. I'd like to see the source on that.

As you have pointed out, horses used to be much sturdier and used to race much more often before we started using lasix and all these other drugs. I'm not claiming that that proves that lasix and all these drugs are the reason why horses are so much more fragile now, but I certainly think that it is a possibility. I think it is a reasonable hypothesis. There are some smart people in this industry that believe it. I don't know if it is true or not but I don't know how anyone could say with certainty that it's not true.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if that's true about horses starting only 3 or 4 times a year in Ireland and France. That sounds a little low to me. I'd like to see the source on that.

As you have pointed out, horses used to be much sturdier and used to race much more often before we started using lasix and all these other drugs. I'm not claiming that that proves that lasix and all these drugs are the reason why horses are so much more fragile now, but I certainly think that it is a possibility. I think it is a reasonable hypothesis. There are some smart people in this industry that believe it. I don't know if it is true or not but I don't know how anyone could say with certainty that it's not true.

Any lack of durability can be traced directly to the late 70's/early 80's when the number of horses in the US exploded. Horses who werent considered worthy of being breeding stock in prior years were suddenly being bred each and every year. The stallion ranks grew and likewise many of those who would have been considered inferior just a few years before were suddenly breeding full books of mares. When the foal crop goes from 25000 (1970) to 50000 (1985) it is logical that there will be a dilution of quality right? The shrinking of foal crops will make it tough on the racing side but should take some of the lesser breeding stock out of comission though the exodus to statebred programs may temper this. Of course there is no real way to measure this as it is a nebulous topic. If you believe the sheets horses have never been faster and yet beyer figures are lacking in comparison to 20 years ago in general. I still dont understand why medication gets so much blame from people who are perfectly willing to breed unraced mares to lightly raced stallions...

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Any lack of durability can be traced directly to the late 70's/early 80's when the number of horses in the US exploded. Horses who werent considered worthy of being breeding stock in prior years were suddenly being bred each and every year. The stallion ranks grew and likewise many of those who would have been considered inferior just a few years before were suddenly breeding full books of mares. When the foal crop goes from 25000 (1970) to 50000 (1985) it is logical that there will be a dilution of quality right? The shrinking of foal crops will make it tough on the racing side but should take some of the lesser breeding stock out of comission though the exodus to statebred programs may temper this. Of course there is no real way to measure this as it is a nebulous topic. If you believe the sheets horses have never been faster and yet beyer figures are lacking in comparison to 20 years ago in general. I still dont understand why medication gets so much blame from people who are perfectly willing to breed unraced mares to lightly raced stallions...

You know that answer -- it's easy to blame something else when you're making money on the questionable. Tesio be damned.