Churchill to test scratch horses

[citycat]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is just a stupid idea. Simply treat your horse, sick or not and you pass. Of course horses not stabled at Churchill are probably not going to be tested anyway. It is just a waste of money. Just like testing to make sure that you give Lasix and testing for the adjunct meds. They say they dont have enough money to adequately test but they add silly things to the list of things to test for?

I agree with what you are saying but what do you do about the handful of trainers (Moquett) who consistently enter and scratch (many times entering multiple to get the race to go then scratch). I know this is not the "spirit" of the scratch but he really shops for races.

[blackthroatedwind]

I respect Chuck's opinion as he obviously understands the physical aspect of this much better than I ever will, but I don't think that's the only issue here, and I for one am happy any time any racetrack seems to pay attention to the horseplayers' interests. The simple fact is that horseplayers waste an enormous amount of time handicapping races that end up completely different than the ones they originally analyzed. In NY, race after race gets significantly altered by late scratches, and the handicapping of claiming races in particular becomes superfluous until the late scratches are given. And, furthermore, the same trainers seem to scratch the most, and often this seems to be because the race does not set up well for their entrants. These scratched horses also show up in the very near future quite often. While I blame the racing office for carding similar opportunities for these scratched horses, I blame the trainers too, who show little to no regard, far too often, for the overall best interests of the game. Why should they be allowed to enter and then have the option of deciding if the race is too tough for their horse at the expense of the overall good of the game? When an eight horse race scratches down to five this is dramatically the case. Horseplayers are given a poor wagering opportunity, thus the handle suffers significantly, and everybody loses.

Nobody is suggesting that a trainer run an ailing horse, but we all know that this is quite often not the case with scratched horses, and perhaps a plan like this will minimize the problem horseplayers face with abundant scratches. I understand there are opposing views to this, and I could probably argue some of them as well, but to me the bottom line is that the game is much better overall when original fields remain intact......and when there's a sense that this will be the case on a consistent basis.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I respect Chuck's opinion as he obviously understands the physical aspect of this much better than I ever will, but I don't think that's the only issue here, and I for one am happy any time any racetrack seems to pay attention to the horseplayers' interests. The simple fact is that horseplayers waste an enormous amount of time handicapping races that end up completely different than the ones they originally analyzed. In NY, race after race gets significantly altered by late scratches, and the handicapping of claiming races in particular becomes superfluous until the late scratches are given. And, furthermore, the same trainers seem to scratch the most, and often this seems to be because the race does not set up well for their entrants. These scratched horses also show up in the very near future quite often. While I blame the racing office for carding similar opportunities for these scratched horses, I blame the trainers too, who show little to no regard, far too often, for the overall best interests of the game. Why should they be allowed to enter and then have the option of deciding if the race is too tough for their horse at the expense of the overall good of the game? When an eight horse race scratches down to five this is dramatically the case. Horseplayers are given a poor wagering opportunity, thus the handle suffers significantly, and everybody loses.

Nobody is suggesting that a trainer run an ailing horse, but we all know that this is quite often not the case with scratched horses, and perhaps a plan like this will minimize the problem horseplayers face with abundant scratches. I understand there are opposing views to this, and I could probably argue some of them as well, but to me the bottom line is that the game is much better overall when original fields remain intact......and when there's a sense that this will be the case on a consistent basis.

Would trainers be less inclined to scratch if there was a rule that said any scratched horse cannot run for, say, 21 days? Maybe instead of testing horses, which like Chuck said will catch no one, they could force a horse to stay in the barn for a period of time. Perhaps that would separate the healthy from the sick, so to speak.

I also don't think this move has anything to do with protecting horseplayers' interests. That is incidental.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

I also don't think this move has anything to do with protecting horseplayers' interests. That is incidental.

Yes an no. Obviously it is being done to try to increase field size. However, this is because the larger the field size the larger the handle, and thus the more the track makes. However, the handle is bigger because horseplayers, obviously, have a greater desire to wager. Thus the differing interests are directly intertwined.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Yes an no. Obviously it is being done to try to increase field size. However, this is because the larger the field size the larger the handle, and thus the more the track makes. However, the handle is bigger because horseplayers, obviously, have a greater desire to wager. Thus the differing interests are directly intertwined.

I'm just big on not giving credit where credit isn't due. And were it not for the fact that larger fields mean more money for the track, this move would not have been made, even IF bettors asked for it.

Now, I'll be singing a different tune when tracks start refunding money or paying consolations when a multi-race bet is affected by a scratch instead of giving the post-time favorite. I hate that rule.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

I'm just big on not giving credit where credit isn't due. And were it not for the fact that larger fields mean more money for the track, this move would not have been made, even IF bettors asked for it.

Fair enough, but I am also for applauding a rule which has at least an auxilary benefit to horseplayers.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Fair enough, but I am also for applauding a rule which has at least an auxilary benefit to horseplayers.

Let's see what happens after CD weighs the cost of the testing against the added revenue from the increased handle, if there is any added handle.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I respect Chuck's opinion as he obviously understands the physical aspect of this much better than I ever will, but I don't think that's the only issue here, and I for one am happy any time any racetrack seems to pay attention to the horseplayers' interests. The simple fact is that horseplayers waste an enormous amount of time handicapping races that end up completely different than the ones they originally analyzed. In NY, race after race gets significantly altered by late scratches, and the handicapping of claiming races in particular becomes superfluous until the late scratches are given. And, furthermore, the same trainers seem to scratch the most, and often this seems to be because the race does not set up well for their entrants. These scratched horses also show up in the very near future quite often. While I blame the racing office for carding similar opportunities for these scratched horses, I blame the trainers too, who show little to no regard, far too often, for the overall best interests of the game. Why should they be allowed to enter and then have the option of deciding if the race is too tough for their horse at the expense of the overall good of the game? When an eight horse race scratches down to five this is dramatically the case. Horseplayers are given a poor wagering opportunity, thus the handle suffers significantly, and everybody loses.

Nobody is suggesting that a trainer run an ailing horse, but we all know that this is quite often not the case with scratched horses, and perhaps a plan like this will minimize the problem horseplayers face with abundant scratches. I understand there are opposing views to this, and I could probably argue some of them as well, but to me the bottom line is that the game is much better overall when original fields remain intact......and when there's a sense that this will be the case on a consistent basis.

Both positions horseman vs. handicapper are completely plausible arguments.

The owners buy the horse, have it fed, trainered, and vetted. The owner wants the best opportunity to make their invest fruitful. Handicapper loses when owner takes position to scratch horse when conditions are more favorable another day. Who is wrong here? Nobody.. handicappers are looking sustain their livelihood...Owner/trainers looking after theirs... The good of the game theme is a bit weak and self serving.. If the owner/trainer picks better spots and wins more money they have ability to reinvest in the game and are more likely to do so. So isn't that just as good for game?

I think an owner should do what is in his/her best interest and handicappers should do the same.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I respect Chuck's opinion as he obviously understands the physical aspect of this much better than I ever will, but I don't think that's the only issue here, and I for one am happy any time any racetrack seems to pay attention to the horseplayers' interests. The simple fact is that horseplayers waste an enormous amount of time handicapping races that end up completely different than the ones they originally analyzed. In NY, race after race gets significantly altered by late scratches, and the handicapping of claiming races in particular becomes superfluous until the late scratches are given. And, furthermore, the same trainers seem to scratch the most, and often this seems to be because the race does not set up well for their entrants. These scratched horses also show up in the very near future quite often. While I blame the racing office for carding similar opportunities for these scratched horses, I blame the trainers too, who show little to no regard, far too often, for the overall best interests of the game. Why should they be allowed to enter and then have the option of deciding if the race is too tough for their horse at the expense of the overall good of the game? When an eight horse race scratches down to five this is dramatically the case. Horseplayers are given a poor wagering opportunity, thus the handle suffers significantly, and everybody loses.

Nobody is suggesting that a trainer run an ailing horse, but we all know that this is quite often not the case with scratched horses, and perhaps a plan like this will minimize the problem horseplayers face with abundant scratches. I understand there are opposing views to this, and I could probably argue some of them as well, but to me the bottom line is that the game is much better overall when original fields remain intact......and when there's a sense that this will be the case on a consistent basis.

While I agree with much of what you said I fail to see who this is going to help outside of vets who will be giving more shots, often to horses without a real need. I would gather that virtually no one will not scratch because of this but those that do will pay a minor $30-50? penalty by giving a horse an unnecessary shot. I guess what I am saying that while it is nice to see a track pay some kind of attention to the bettors needs, an idea which is so flawed serves more as a PR move than something with actual effectiveness.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by justindew

Let's see what happens after CD weighs the cost of the testing against the added revenue from the increased handle, if there is any added handle.

As I said before a state that is lacking in funding for proper testing is jsut wasting more time testing for things like this. CD could put its money into something more constructive that actually has a chance of doing something.

[Storm Cadet]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

While I agree with much of what you said I fail to see who this is going to help outside of vets who will be giving more shots, often to horses without a real need. I would gather that virtually no one will not scratch because of this but those that do will pay a minor $30-50? penalty by giving a horse an unnecessary shot. I guess what I am saying that while it is nice to see a track pay some kind of attention to the bettors needs, an idea which is so flawed serves more as a PR move than something with actual effectiveness.

Agree...plus increased owners cost of the vet injection and medication bills for a BS scratch!

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

Agree...plus increased owners cost of the vet injection and medication bills for a BS scratch!

Then owners should insist that their trainers only enter if they intend to run.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by justindew

Would trainers be less inclined to scratch if there was a rule that said any scratched horse cannot run for, say, 21 days? Maybe instead of testing horses, which like Chuck said will catch no one, they could force a horse to stay in the barn for a period of time. Perhaps that would separate the healthy from the sick, so to speak.

There's your solution. Make the horse stand in the barn so it can't make the next race it scratched to run in. To make this effective, though, they'd have to ensure cross-track communication so that I couldn't scratch out of Delpark to run at Charles Town, and get away with it.

A lot of condition books seem to be written on a 21 to 28 day cycle so make it 30 days.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

I'm in the medical field with a patient load of over 350 patients each day and YES...we don't prescribe anti biotics until we get a positive test. Nowadays we do in house strep and mono tests that take 5 minutes. We get cultures back in 24 hours. We will call in the script ONLY with a positive culture.

In case you have not been reading the papers lately, MRSA staph super bugs are spreading here exactly because broad spectrum meds are dispensed before a correct diagnosis is made. And IF broad spectrum meds are given and taken, then a blood test culture test 24-48 hours later is now void and not valid.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antibiotics/FL00075

http://www.drgreene.org/body.cfm?id=...detail&ref=519

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/85910.php

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/134/6/479

i took my kids to a pediatrician once, long ago....she said viral, here's a prescrip for antibiotics. the paper went in the trash along with her phone #. docs like her a part of the problem, another part are those who take part of their meds, feel better, rest goes on the shelf...dummies.

[MisterB]

Don't forget the one's that break down, they need to be tested too!

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i took my kids to a pediatrician once, long ago....she said viral, here's a prescrip for antibiotics. the paper went in the trash along with her phone #. docs like her a part of the problem, another part are those who take part of their meds, feel better, rest goes on the shelf...dummies.

Antibiotics are prescribed for viral infections so the body can fight off other bacterial infections while the body is weakened from fighting the viral infection.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by justindew

Antibiotics are prescribed for viral infections so the body can fight off other bacterial infections while the body is weakened from fighting the viral infection.

that's the first time i've ever heard that. and i don't think it's true.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's the first time i've ever heard that. and i don't think it's true.

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/fl...tibiotics-work


http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/p...ns-antibiotics

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that's the first time i've ever heard that. and i don't think it's true.

It's KAKA

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/fl...tibiotics-work


http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/p...ns-antibiotics

Not one of those links contradicts what I said.

And I come from a family of doctors.

Yes, overuse of antibiotics can have negative results, such as resistance to the drug. But taking antibiotics while fighting a viral infection is common.