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

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

No doubt that conformation is an important component of racehorse injury. But isn't even the most ideally conformed racehorse susceptible to injury if overworked/overraced?

Does treating minor issues with legal therapeutics, specifically for racing purposes(versus for training or recovery), enable potential overload, and potentially cause some minor injuries to become "major" ones? If that scenario is commonplace, would a ban of therapeutics (to threshold levels) from, say, 7-days out (after most horses have had their final breeze for an upcoming start) be a logical approach to controlling medication use?

[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]

I think the stomach issue is something that can be easily explained as people can relate.

It wasnt that long ago that we didnt have any idea to what extent ulcers played in the health of horses. It seems amazing now but 20 years ago very few people made much of it. When a stomach scope was developed we found that a huge majority of horses had stomach ulcers, even seemingly healthy, in-form ones might have some degree of ulcers.

Before we recognized ulcers was a problem that was causing horses to be less healthy, their coats would go bad, they would act colicky, they would get sour, form would go off. Trainers would turn those horses out (good ones at least) and let the issue sort itself out (even if they didnt know the root cause). Being turned out on a grass paddock can reduce stomach ulcers either completely or to a managable level so after a few months the horse could return to training.

Now that we understand the role ulcers play we not only can manage them with medicine (expensive medicine I might add) but take other steps to try to reduce the development of them. Instead of having to give horse 3 months off and spend 3 months bringing them back we can treat them and keep them healthier. While i'm sure that some will believe that the rest isnt so bad try owning a horse that cant race for 1/2 the year. The other issue is that just because you healed the ulcers in this instance the factors that caused them in the first place are still there. So eventually the same cycle will play over again.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

From news reports, the regulators seem to claim that they make an effort to notify horsemen of changes in testing standards. I don't know how strong an effort is made or whether or not a horseman can reasonably be expected to juggle all the rules, changes, withdrawals, etc., especially if he's operating in more than one jurisdiction.

However, back to the pre-race regimens, how likely is it that these are typically "cookbooked", in the sense that every horse from the same barn gets the same treatment? Does this seem apporpriate form a "horsemanship" standpoint? Furthermore, what is the dominant thought process behind the administration of pre-race treamtents? What the horse actually needs? What the horse received when he (or a stablemate) was last successful? What the rules/withdrawal times allow? What "levels the playing field"?

[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.