Churchill to test scratch horses

[Riot]

So there is no MRSA or equivalent in the equine world??

Not really, although it's certainly something the veterinary world has kept a close eye on, obviously, due to what's happened in human medicine over the years.

There have been problems within some equine hospitals regarding nasty salmonella species, and some small animal hospitals have had environmentally-specific nosicomial infections that take attention and care to eradicate. But no super-super bugs have developed out of that yet, thank goodness.

I think it's probably because animals generally have different epidemiologic considerations than humans, fortunately, it is much more difficult for them to 1) spread antibiotic-resistent bugs around, as unlike humans they are not out and about exposing 20 or 100 others after having taken only half of their prescribed antibotic dose; 2) rarely do animals get prescribed antibotic in their lives compared to humans, 3) sick herd animals are more often euthanized than treated

The worse and most common veterinary antibiotic misuse in my experience has been (in referral patients) vets who have prescribed a variety of different antibiotics for an escalating non-responsive infection that is fungal; and repeated antibiotics prescribed for "urinary tract infections" that are not.

The very common canine skin staphs are still quite sensitive to the cephalosporins, and the derm world hasn't reported any resistence problems appearing yet.

Believe it or not, the way herdsmen (cattle) tend to throw antibiotic at anything with a runny discharge, and considering the use of antibiotic in swine and poultry operations, resistence hasn't developed (although what's in our food chain is another story).

That's all I can think of at the moment

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

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

Many owners are the ones who insist that you scratch

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

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

You're going to have an impossible time convincing me to give a horse a shot of antibiotic or Banamine if I don't think he needs it.