NY Task Force on Racehorse Health & Safety Report, Reccos

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You think greater % of players in the NFL are on HGH and synthetic steroids or Div 3 football?

Clenbuterol side effects are wildly overblown. Personally I dont use it except for horses with acute lung issues because I never saw the benefit of giving it everyday. I tried it everyday on 6 horses for about 3-4 months years ago and honestly didnt see any difference at all.

Not to mention it is really expensive, especially if you are putting your whole barn on it everyday.

But isn't that a big issue, trainers just milking owners for more dollars. Why would you try something that is expensive for 3-4 months without knowing the effect? Maybe the effects are overblown, but the point remains.

Honest question because I don't know, is there a mark up for trainers on vet bills? When I was an AC guy, in addition to labor, it is part of the business to mark up the price on any parts. That is why I ask.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

But isn't that a big issue, trainers just milking owners for more dollars. Why would you try something that is expensive for 3-4 months without knowing the effect? Maybe the effects are overblown, but the point remains.

Honest question because I don't know, is there a mark up for trainers on vet bills? When I was an AC guy, in addition to labor, it is part of the business to mark up the price on any parts. That is why I ask.

There is zero trainers markup on the vast majority of vet bills. Some big trainers may get a kickback of some sort because of the large volume but for the most part the vets bill the owners directly.

Why would I try something without knowing the effect? Well how are you going to know anything without trying it? There was no reason then to think it wouldnt be beneficial and truthfully there is very little data now to suggest that it is harmful.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is zero trainers markup on the vast majority of vet bills. Some big trainers may get a kickback of some sort because of the large volume but for the most part the vets bill the owners directly.

Why would I try something without knowing the effect? Well how are you going to know anything without trying it? There was no reason then to think it wouldnt be beneficial and truthfully there is very little data now to suggest that it is harmful.

When you say there is no markup on the vast majority, does that mean there is some?

It isn't like you are the first to try? Is there no sharing of info in this sport for the welfare of the horse? Would you have tried if you had to pay for it? Did the owner agree to this beforehand? I'm just trying to figure out how all this works.

Does very little data to suggest it is harmful mean there is some? I just don't get this liberal attitude about drug use on animals. It just seems like the idea is lets just stick them and see where it leads. I'm certainly not talking about you specifically, but the entire industry.

[outofthebox]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

When you say there is no markup on the vast majority, does that mean there is some?

It isn't like you are the first to try? Is there no sharing of info in this sport for the welfare of the horse? Would you have tried if you had to pay for it? Did the owner agree to this beforehand? I'm just trying to figure out how all this works.

Does very little data to suggest it is harmful mean there is some? I just don't get this liberal attitude about drug use on animals. It just seems like the idea is lets just stick them and see where it leads. I'm certainly not talking about you specifically, but the entire industry.

I like Chuck have used it at certain levels before realizing i see no advantage in using it everyday..I do use it when a horse scopes bad along with some antibiotics to help the horse through the ordeal. I have in the pass noticed some horses that we claimed off known users of clen to have some sort of "crash" when no longer on the drug..

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

When you say there is no markup on the vast majority, does that mean there is some?

It isn't like you are the first to try? Is there no sharing of info in this sport for the welfare of the horse? Would you have tried if you had to pay for it? Did the owner agree to this beforehand? I'm just trying to figure out how all this works.

Does very little data to suggest it is harmful mean there is some? I just don't get this liberal attitude about drug use on animals. It just seems like the idea is lets just stick them and see where it leads. I'm certainly not talking about you specifically, but the entire industry.

There are 6000+ licensed trainers and I dont know what everyone does but as I said the vast majority have their owners billed directly.

The entire welfare of the horse approach is skewed in these arguments. The vast majority of vet work is either done in response to a specific issue or is preventative medicine. Since most of the trainers are using vets that work for other trainers as well (very few if any private vets exist anymore) there of course is sharing of info. However for the most part trainers keep quiet about what they are doing though for the most part it isnt that much different than everyone else. There was a big advantage about 12-15 years ago for trainers that were treating horses for ulcers. Why give that advantage up? For the most part we all train on the same tracks, use the same facilities, use the same vets, have the same pool of workers to draw from, etc. However we don't have the same owners or access to horses. So when you think that you are doing something better than others are you tend to keep that to yourself. Truth is there have been so many advances in medicine and technology that trainers are far more aware of issues that used to be ignored. Ulcer treatment, EPM meds, wormers, etc are all pretty much standard fare yet 10 years ago only a few guys were using treatments for these effectively. Just imagine the advantage you would have if you could go back 40 years ago and use your speed figures? Would you be giving them out?

You tend to treat my responses as a cross examination. Very little data means that there is very little data that I have heard about. Mostly there is theories but in horseracing theories often pass for facts. I'm leaving open the possibily that there may be some data about the negative health issues that clenbuterol may create that I am not aware of but as far as I know there arent.

There are negatives to virtually every act known to man. Using clenbuterol on a daily basis was done to see of we can possible keep the horses from getting a lung infections which are a nagging issue in horses for a variety of reasons. It is debatable if it does this effectively enough to justify the expense. It is also debatable if the other supposed benefits are really there. Does it work to clear a horses lungs in the case of respiratory illness? Very well. Is it worth doing all the time? Not in my opinion. But doing so doesn't make it wrong either. I'm fine with a 21 day withdrawl period as the way I use it would rarely be an issue. But I dont think a 21 day withdrawl or a 30 day withdrawl period will have any effect on breakdown rates at all.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are 6000+ licensed trainers and I dont know what everyone does but as I said the vast majority have their owners billed directly.

The entire welfare of the horse approach is skewed in these arguments. The vast majority of vet work is either done in response to a specific issue or is preventative medicine. Since most of the trainers are using vets that work for other trainers as well (very few if any private vets exist anymore) there of course is sharing of info. However for the most part trainers keep quiet about what they are doing though for the most part it isnt that much different than everyone else. There was a big advantage about 12-15 years ago for trainers that were treating horses for ulcers. Why give that advantage up? For the most part we all train on the same tracks, use the same facilities, use the same vets, have the same pool of workers to draw from, etc. However we don't have the same owners or access to horses. So when you think that you are doing something better than others are you tend to keep that to yourself. Truth is there have been so many advances in medicine and technology that trainers are far more aware of issues that used to be ignored. Ulcer treatment, EPM meds, wormers, etc are all pretty much standard fare yet 10 years ago only a few guys were using treatments for these effectively. Just imagine the advantage you would have if you could go back 40 years ago and use your speed figures? Would you be giving them out?

You tend to treat my responses as a cross examination. Very little data means that there is very little data that I have heard about. Mostly there is theories but in horseracing theories often pass for facts. I'm leaving open the possibily that there may be some data about the negative health issues that clenbuterol may create that I am not aware of but as far as I know there arent.

There are negatives to virtually every act known to man. Using clenbuterol on a daily basis was done to see of we can possible keep the horses from getting a lung infections which are a nagging issue in horses for a variety of reasons. It is debatable if it does this effectively enough to justify the expense. It is also debatable if the other supposed benefits are really there. Does it work to clear a horses lungs in the case of respiratory illness? Very well. Is it worth doing all the time? Not in my opinion. But doing so doesn't make it wrong either. I'm fine with a 21 day withdrawl period as the way I use it would rarely be an issue. But I dont think a 21 day withdrawl or a 30 day withdrawl period will have any effect on breakdown rates at all.

And despite all the advances, we can't get horses to race more than every 5 or 6 weeks, at most. Call me skeptical that all these drugs do more good than harm.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And despite all the advances, we can't get horses to race more than every 5 or 6 weeks, at most. Call me skeptical that all these drugs do more good than harm.

Seriously? If you are talking about the top horses it is completely by design. Blame Bobby Frankel and then Pletcher for that. Everybody reads sheets now, owners, trainers, racing managers, etc and as soon as a horse runs a big number the first thing they want to do is not run. Not because there is anything wrong with the horses but they want to "manage" them and avoid "regression" so they "give them time" and "space" races. Not to mention that once you get through a few conditions it is easy to run out of places to run. It is stupid and more harmful to horses than anything especially young ones because they dont gain experience training but hey dont blame the rest of us for that.

Look at the B and C level circuits and tell me horses can't run every 2 or 3 weeks. Sure there are guys like Walder who will wait 2 months with a 15000 claimer but he isnt not running because the horse cant, he is waiting for the absolute perfect condition. The fact that the condition books have changed with the normal claiming ladder mostly abandoned and the rise of the conditioned claimer has far more to do with horses running less than "drugs". How many times do you see trainers run a nw2 horse in a nw3 race? Almost never. So instead of running a horse in a open 10000 claimer and if they cant cut it drop to a 7500 race like it always was when we didnt have so many options, you wait for the 10000 nw2 race. Because the pool of horses for a nw2 race is much smaller than the pool for an open 10000 race it may take longer for the race to fill especially the two turn dirt races.

For the most part normal, everyday horses have no problem racing every few weeks. The idea that "drugs" have a negative effect on horses or doesnt allow them to run as much as they used to is stupid.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

For the most part normal, everyday horses have no problem racing every few weeks. The idea that "drugs" have a negative effect on horses or doesnt allow them to run as much as they used to is stupid.

Even lower level horses don't run nearly as often as they once did. I realize it is impossible to discuss drug use with trainers. I just forget sometimes.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

But isn't that a big issue, trainers just milking owners for more dollars. Why would you try something that is expensive for 3-4 months without knowing the effect? Maybe the effects are overblown, but the point remains.

Some trainers are quite susceptible to gossip and old wives tales, and will try anything "believing" it works, and many vets are willing to sell them anything, too. You should see what some people do to horses in all sports to win. It's shocking.

It's like lasix, steroids, artificial surfaces - few base decisions solely upon emperical evidence. Emotion and 'belief" and "I know what I know" drives most of it.