NY Task Force on Racehorse Health & Safety Report, Reccos

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

Oh that's right, I forgot that you already know everything about the subject and all us trainers are just too biased to discuss it.

You make statements like "Lower level horses dont run as much as they used to" and I am supposed to take that as proof that somehow "drugs" are the chief cause ignoring all of the other changes that have occured in the game?

The irony of your "impossible to discuss drugs with trainers" insult is that you come off as a typical internet troll who would rather gossip with other likeminded rumor mongers as opposed to trying to educate yourself on the topic. Suit yourself but people who are willing to not look at other points of view especially coming from trainers who you know are credible on the subject and have a far greater knowledge base are as much of a problem in this sport as the issues themselves.

I am probably as conservative in use of meds as most trainers but understand that racehorses have plenty of issues that must be dealt with especially with the lower level type of horses with which I often have in my barn. There are several owners here that could attest to that. This topic is so warped in the publics view because of misinformation and false innuendo that is taken as fact. Congrats on following the company line. I'm interested in finding out after all is said and done and this big crackdown on "drugs" fails to stem the tide on all the negative trends in the sport what will you blame then?

[cmorioles]

Okay Chuck, I'm just a troll.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Okay Chuck, I'm just a troll.

You ask questions but dont like the answers so it is impossible to discuss drugs with trainers? You have an agenda against drugs despite seemingly not understanding a great deal about what you are against. You dont respond to points brought up in posts but either pick them apart looking for exactness in quotes or simply dismiss them. Agree or disagree? What point have I made that was untrue or unreasonable? The fact of the matter is that without defining "drugs", being for or against them is an inane argument.

Are you against surgeries? Are you against ulcer or digestive tract medications? Are you against Adequan/legend/polyglycan or other drugs that help maintain joint health? Are you against anti-inflamatory drugs? Are you against nsaids? Are you against antibiotics? Are you against allergy medications? Are you against immune stimulants? Are you against injected vitamins? Are you against electrolytes? What about circulatory drugs that help horses with foot issues? What about medications for colic or founder? IRAP therapy? Please tell me where do you draw the line between ok and not ok? Sound silly? Well 95% of positive tests come from medications like these and it has nothing to do with the "culture of drugs" and way more to do with the insane way that the sport is regulated in regards to allowable levels, withdrawl times and a total lack of transparency by state racing comissions and labs.

What exactly is the plan of the paceadvantage platform? Stop treating issues? Ignore them? Go holistic? Faith heal? Or that nonsense I hear all the time, give them time off? So everytime anything goes wrong with a horse we just give them time off? We have complaints that horses dont race enough already but we are supposed to just keep them in a stall or turn out in a field till all is well? Please enlighten me as to what all the non-trainers have come up with to solve the drug problem.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Oh that's right, I forgot that you already know everything about the subject and all us trainers are just too biased to discuss it.

You make statements like "Lower level horses dont run as much as they used to" and I am supposed to take that as proof that somehow "drugs" are the chief cause ignoring all of the other changes that have occured in the game?

The irony of your "impossible to discuss drugs with trainers" insult is that you come off as a typical internet troll who would rather gossip with other likeminded rumor mongers as opposed to trying to educate yourself on the topic. Suit yourself but people who are willing to not look at other points of view especially coming from trainers who you know are credible on the subject and have a far greater knowledge base are as much of a problem in this sport as the issues themselves.

I am probably as conservative in use of meds as most trainers but understand that racehorses have plenty of issues that must be dealt with especially with the lower level type of horses with which I often have in my barn. There are several owners here that could attest to that. This topic is so warped in the publics view because of misinformation and false innuendo that is taken as fact. Congrats on following the company line. I'm interested in finding out after all is said and done and this big crackdown on "drugs" fails to stem the tide on all the negative trends in the sport what will you blame then?

[outofthebox]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

I have an average of 20 horses in my barn throughout the year. We are heading into the 10th month of the year and i have 81 starts. Do the math, not a good stat of starts per stalls..Problem here in La. is there are to many horses at mdn and low level claimers. I would love to run these low level claimers every three weeks, but it's nearly impossible..