NYRA "safety steps"

[cj]

Can't believe this isn't posted here yet:

http://www.nyra.com/aqueduct/new-york-racing-association-announces-additional-steps-to-further-enhance-safety-at-aqueduct-racetrack/

[elhelmete]

Wow. Gonna have to digest these for a bit.

Thanks for posting.

[davew]

wow, no races again in less than 14 days

[Stillriledup]

Yes, these are some great things. I love the idea that you can't race back in 14 days or less.

They can also consider adding to that beaten lengths list horses who are dropping alarmingly far in class. Maybe have some type of scale that you only drop a recent claim so far within certain time frames...sort of like reverse jail.

Great stuff though by them, hats off no doubt.

[chadk66]

I don't understand what their rational for not allowing starts of fourteen days or less. Hell the NYRA might as well just have one of their people train all the horses on the grounds:D:D

[Stillriledup]

I don't understand what their rational for not allowing starts of fourteen days or less. Hell the NYRA might as well just have one of their people train all the horses on the grounds:D:D


I think the theory behind it is that they don't want horses rushed back to earn purse money unless they're rested and ready. While not all horses need to wait that long to race, some do, so this rule is for them.

[cj]

I don't understand what their rational for not allowing starts of fourteen days or less. Hell the NYRA might as well just have one of their people train all the horses on the grounds:D:D

I can see it off of "bad" performances, but not good ones. We just need to determine what is a "bad" performance. Certainly not just being beaten 25 lengths.

Question for Chad, what horse can't work in 53 seconds for a half mile, even if sore?

[JustRalph]

I can see it off of "bad" performances, but not good ones. We just need to determine what is a "bad" performance. Certainly not just being beaten 25 lengths.

Question for Chad, what horse can't work in 53 seconds for a half mile, even if sore?

Reading my mind. One step further. What happens when that low performing jock is 20 back in the stretch on a horse that is obviously not right, and he damn sure doesn't want to finish 25 behind? Where does his mind go? Ease? Go to the whip?

There has to be a better way to determine a poor performance.

[aaron]

Curious,exactly how many horses have come back in 14 day's or less and how did they do ?

[Clocker]

I love the limit on Maiden Claimers. A trainer with a $12.5K horse that is suddenly running at $16K is certainly going to treat it a lot better. :p

[aaron]

I can see it off of "bad" performances, but not good ones. We just need to determine what is a "bad" performance. Certainly not just being beaten 25 lengths.

Question for Chad, what horse can't work in 53 seconds for a half mile, even if sore?
A bad performance was the favorite in the first race today.

[PaceAdvantage]

Something in me hates all this crap...why has this game changed so much from when I first started out in it?

I used to think it was me...I was changing...getting older...whatever...

But now I know, the game has changed, and definitely not for the better or the bettor...

[Stillriledup]

Something in me hates all this crap...why has this game changed so much from when I first started out in it?

I used to think it was me...I was changing...getting older...whatever...

But now I know, the game has changed, and definitely not for the better or the bettor...

You don't like the new rules? Seems like they're a good thing.

[GatetoWire]

This 14 day between starts rule is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Put the onus on the Owner, Trainer and the Vets to make sure the horse is ready to race.

Lots of trainers have excellent records with starts between 7-14 Days on the Inner over the past few years (Gary Gullo, Patrick Kelly, Eddie Keneally, Tom Morley to name a few).

Show me the stats that show racing within 14 days causes breakdowns.

[lamboguy]

are these rules just for Aqueduct or for all 3 tracks?

[Robert Fischer]

The public relations aspect is a wise idea. The idea of building "safeguards" into the process of the inspection of horses is a wise idea.

[Tall One]

are these rules just for Aqueduct or for all 3 tracks?



The way I took it, for now, it's limited to Aqueduct.

[Stillriledup]

This 14 day between starts rule is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Put the onus on the Owner, Trainer and the Vets to make sure the horse is ready to race.

Lots of trainers have excellent records with starts between 7-14 Days on the Inner over the past few years (Gary Gullo, Patrick Kelly, Eddie Keneally, Tom Morley to name a few).

Show me the stats that show racing within 14 days causes breakdowns.

Putting the onus on the humans to "do the right thing" hasn't worked out so well.

As far as breakdowns goes and its relationship with quick turnarounds, maybe this rule is so the trainers who play rentahorse won't "use up" horses and manage them improperly because they know they won't own them a week or a month from that day's race.

What if a trainer decided to run a horse 4 times in 21 days and then on the 22nd day the horse got a rest until the 42nd day and THEN broke down after a "20 day" layoff.....would you exclude a horse like this in the stats of horses who broke down because they were raced back too quick? Technically, you can exclude it....but the horse being raced a lot in a short span probably contributed to that horse's demise.

If this 14 day rule is the stupidest thing you have ever heard, you need to read more of my posts. :D

[kmac1470]

Good thing they don't run the Preakness at Aqueduct! :p

[jross0108]

I think the theory behind it is that they don't want horses rushed back to earn purse money unless they're rested and ready. While not all horses need to wait that long to race, some do, so this rule is for them.

I saw this post and saw a couple entries by a stable that seemed to run their horses back after less than 14-16 days so I got curious and decided to look up the stable (Reyana Racing) and their horses to see if their was a trend. Unfortunately there was. They all had one thing in common too, the trainer was Randi Persaud. I don't follow the NYRA as much as others but when I looked up I saw he runs a lot of his horses at NYRA tracks. His career statistics say he has 2,499 career starts as and has won only 169 starts. 6.7% win percentage. He has a few horses of his own and one of them broke down while training at Aqueduct on 1/19. Put together a list of some of Reyana Racing horses along with a link to equibase that shows their results. Lots of races while not having a lot of rest between races. Like SRU stated, maybe the 14 day layoff rule was to prevent owners and trainers like this to run them back quick just to make a buck.


http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=9213794&registry=T Spa Town Parade (Reyana Racing)

http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=8890737&registry=T Bay Road (Reyana Racing)

http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=8914559&registry=T Come On Charlie (Reyana Racing)

http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=9307236&registry=T Golden Luck (Reyana Racing)

http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=9349906&registry=T Mr. Amos (Reyana Racing)

http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=9122827&registry=T Front Cover Dream (Reyana Racing) 30 starts before turning 4

[Tom]

Here are some facts on this topic.
Aqueduct, Inner track Last December through this December.

Jross hit a home run here. :ThmbUp:

Of all the horses coming back in less than 15 days, 24% of them had exacta finishes. 3% did not finish and 3% finished 25 or more lengths behind in the fast come back race.

Of the 27 horses that did not finish, 26% of them were trained by two trainers.
Names look familiar?

[Tom]

In addition to leading the pack with DNF horses, Jacobson had 5 that finished over 25 lengths back and Randy had 6 over 25 lengths.

Maybe the new rules should be more barn-specific?

[taxicab]

Here's an E-Mail the NYRA received this morning.

Dear NYRA...
Thanks so much for helping our 6 horse fields turn into 12 horse fields.

Signed: Laurel Park/Parx/Penn National.

[v j stauffer]

Good thing they don't run the Preakness at Aqueduct! :p

POST OF THE DECADE! :jump: :ThmbUp:

[taxicab]

How about the Elephant in the room..... :eek:


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=1778&moveto=10&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=2122&moveto=11&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=316&moveto=12&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=3306&moveto=14&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=11629&moveto=1&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=14704&moveto=2&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=19914&moveto=3&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=22391&moveto=4&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=21466&moveto=7&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RTReport=2&EPID=6956&L=Englehart&M=J.&F=Chris&clearsearch=YES :bang:

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RTReport=2&EPID=1073&L=Levine&M=N.&F=Bruce&clearsearch=YES :eek:

[RXB]

If they installed a synthetic surface on the inner track, they'd almost certainly reduce the fatality rate without having to resort to all of these rules and regulations, some of which are curious to say the least.

The benefits would extend beyond the winter months. When races need to be taken off of the turf in April and November/early December, they'd be able to switch to the synthetic inner instead of the main dirt track-- fewer scratches, more reliable transfer of running form, and safer.

They might even keep some of the turf claimers on the grounds that usually ship to Gulfstream for the winter.

[RXB]

These rule changes were very minor. Installing a synthetic surface would be a radical change.

Radical, yes, as in it would probably actually work.

[nijinski]

Shewreckstheplace fractured her front sesamoids according to equus
on 1/4. Her prior race was 12/28.
She also has a prior DNF . That chart said she was choppy gaited before
being eased,back in April .
She was a 6 yo old mdn with 36 starts . Most with front bandages .




Aqueduct 12/31/2014 2 Maiden Claiming 8
Aqueduct 12/11/2014 4 Maiden Claiming 6
Aqueduct 12/5/2014 4 Maiden Claiming 4
Aqueduct 11/22/2014 2 Maiden Claiming 5
Aqueduct 11/6/2014 2 Maiden Claiming 6
Belmont Park 10/16/2014 9 Maiden Special Weight

Just turned three , broke rt front , 1/9 workout :( Channel Of Love..... Above

[JustRalph]

Shewreckstheplace fractured her front sesamoids according to equus
on 1/4. Her prior race was 12/28.
She also has a prior DNF . That chart said she was choppy gaited before
being eased,back in April .
She was a 6 yo old mdn with 36 starts . Most with front bandages .




Aqueduct 12/31/2014 2 Maiden Claiming 8
Aqueduct 12/11/2014 4 Maiden Claiming 6
Aqueduct 12/5/2014 4 Maiden Claiming 4
Aqueduct 11/22/2014 2 Maiden Claiming 5
Aqueduct 11/6/2014 2 Maiden Claiming 6
Belmont Park 10/16/2014 9 Maiden Special Weight

Just turned three , broke rt front , 1/9 workout :( Channel Of Love..... Above

Who was the trainer?

[classhandicapper]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions?

Most of my research has indicated that horses run BETTER when they come back quickly off a sharp race. It's usually an indication that there is NO problem and their form remains sharp.

You can argue that doing that too often will create an issue. So rather than using "days since last race", maybe a rule like no more than 2 races within 30 days would work better (something like that). Then you could wheel a sharp horse back, but you can't abuse it.

The definition of a bad race is also a little problematical (though the workout rule is not onerous).

Clearly, the idea is to identify "problem horses", but suppose a horse:

1. Hated a very off track
2. Failed on an unfamiliar surface or an attempt to stretch out
3. Just happened to run into some monster that won by 15 lengths and finished 11 lengths behind the 2nd horse in OK performance
4. Got into a savage duel and was clearly done so the jock stop urging late
5. etc

I have no good ideas for rules, but I think an independent expert (s) should be making decisions like that.

[classhandicapper]

If they installed a synthetic surface on the inner track, they'd almost certainly reduce the fatality rate without having to resort to all of these rules and regulations, some of which are curious to say the least.

The benefits would extend beyond the winter months. When races need to be taken off of the turf in April and November/early December, they'd be able to switch to the synthetic inner instead of the main dirt track-- fewer scratches, more reliable transfer of running form, and safer.

They might even keep some of the turf claimers on the grounds that usually ship to Gulfstream for the winter.

Speaking from a position of ignorance, I suspect making an investment like that at AQU is not a high probability event given there are powerful people outside the industry that would rather see AQU closed and used for more economic purposes.

[fasteddied]

Personally I love the quick comeback on horses, if a trainer with any brains bring a horse back in 5-6-7 days its always for one reason, WIN. Either the horse is in superior form or he was ridden badly and had alot in the tank but most of all they are telling you up front that they are ready and raring to go. I have made many a good score on these types and will continue to do so with some handicapping involved of course. I dont like the 14 day rule but I will adjust as always.

[RXB]

Speaking from a position of ignorance, I suspect making an investment like that at AQU is not a high probability event given there are powerful people outside the industry that would rather see AQU closed and used for more economic purposes.

They've already spent about $15 million within the past year or two to spruce up Aqueduct. Installation of a synthetic surface shouldn't exceed that number. A drop in the bucket compared to winterizing the Belmont Park facilities. And I know that a lot of the horsemen are dead-set against closing Aqueduct. It could take a long time before Aqueduct is finished.

[Tom]

Who was the trainer?

Who was the vet?

[FantasticDan]

NY Times picks up the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/sports/horses-deaths-at-aqueduct-prompt-new-rules.html?_r=0)

[GatetoWire]

How about the Elephant in the room..... :eek:


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=1778&moveto=10&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=2122&moveto=11&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=316&moveto=12&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=3306&moveto=14&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=11629&moveto=1&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=14704&moveto=2&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=19914&moveto=3&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=22391&moveto=4&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=21466&moveto=7&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RTReport=2&EPID=6956&L=Englehart&M=J.&F=Chris&clearsearch=YES :bang:

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RTReport=2&EPID=1073&L=Levine&M=N.&F=Bruce&clearsearch=YES :eek:

Make sure and read all of those rulings - especially the Chris Englehart one.
Almost all of the recent ones are not med violations.

[GatetoWire]

Putting the onus on the humans to "do the right thing" hasn't worked out so well.

As far as breakdowns goes and its relationship with quick turnarounds, maybe this rule is so the trainers who play rentahorse won't "use up" horses and manage them improperly because they know they won't own them a week or a month from that day's race.

What if a trainer decided to run a horse 4 times in 21 days and then on the 22nd day the horse got a rest until the 42nd day and THEN broke down after a "20 day" layoff.....would you exclude a horse like this in the stats of horses who broke down because they were raced back too quick? Technically, you can exclude it....but the horse being raced a lot in a short span probably contributed to that horse's demise.

If this 14 day rule is the stupidest thing you have ever heard, you need to read more of my posts. :D

These new rules will do nothing to curb breakdowns. It's all PR.
NYRA can't be responsible for every horse running.
The trainer, vets and owners are the ones responsible. The trainer is the one in the stall everyday.
Tell me how any of these new rules will prevent a patched up horse from going to the gate?

[classhandicapper]

They've already spent about $15 million within the past year or two to spruce up Aqueduct. Installation of a synthetic surface shouldn't exceed that number. A drop in the bucket compared to winterizing the Belmont Park facilities. And I know that a lot of the horsemen are dead-set against closing Aqueduct. It could take a long time before Aqueduct is finished.

I don't doubt virtually everyone at NYRA and all the horsemen, owners etc... are against closing AQU. I'm not sure there's an equal desire to spend another 15m (or whatever the number is) to install a synthetic track. I've seen it mentioned. Maybe someone inside knows better. That would go double unless there are final plans for AQU that I haven't seen. I have no problem with the idea. I'm just a horseplayer. I have no vested interest beyond gambling and a love for the animals. Whatever they conclude is best is fine by me.

[SansuiSC]

First thing to come to my mind.....BEFORE reading article, just saw 14 days

His handlers had hoped the horse would run in the 1982 Kentucky Derby but he was kept out by a leg injury that wasn't healing to the point where his trainer was satisfied it would be completely safe. In the much easier Preakness Prep, the horse won, but still his trainer skipped the Preakness Stakes to bring him along on an easier route.

Entered in the Grade I Metropolitan Handicap, Conquistador Cielo set a track-record while winning by 71⁄4 lengths against older horses, breaking Stop The Music's record set in 1973. Trainer Woody Stephens then surprised fans and racing insiders with the announcement that the horse was fit enough to race again six days later in the Belmont Stakes, the final leg of the U.S. Triple Crown races.

In the 1982 Belmont Stakes, Conquistador Cielo defeated the opposition, beating Kentucky Derby champion Gato Del Sol by 14 lengths.

[Tom]

3) NYRA will raise the bottom level for claimers from $12,500 to $16,000, effective Jan. 22.

Nice move. $12,500 horse will now race for $16,000.
Those same $12,000 horses that used to run for $7,500.

Sounds like this problem is solved! :bang:

I have a rule for winter racing - make no bets on any track where you can't see palm trees in the replays. It has worked for years. :D

[Robert Goren]

I was told by a trainer that running a horse who ran on Lasix back in less three weeks (give or take a day or two) is pure folly. Before Lasix horses used to run all time on 6 or 7 days rest. Not so anymore.
Aqu faces two problems. The track surface is bad. It has to be this time of year. You are going to have frozen spots no matter what you do until the frost comes out the ground in march. You can not fool Mother Nature. The horses are bad. NYRA attracts good horses and then they run there until they can't. The good horse go south for the winter, the bad ones stay because of costs. Raising the claiming prices isn't going solve anything. The same horses will be racing.
That said, the AQU inner is my favorite meet of the year. I just wished they would find an extra 2 or 3 starters a race. I am sure at some point AQU will close. Keeping it open for racing just does not make sense on so many levels. A NYRA winter meet (even at Bel) may have go away because the race horse shortage. Something has give with cheap horses running in the winter. There are just too many tracks chasing the same horses.

[chadk66]

I can see it off of "bad" performances, but not good ones. We just need to determine what is a "bad" performance. Certainly not just being beaten 25 lengths.

Question for Chad, what horse can't work in 53 seconds for a half mile, even if sore?pending on the track, 99% with just three legs. so it's a dumb ass rule

[chadk66]

Curious,exactly how many horses have come back in 14 day's or less and how did they do ?I used to have a mare I ran every 12-14 days because you couldn't train her in the morning. She rarely missed the board and raced for many years. never a lame day in her life. This is random feel good nonsense by the NYRA

[Tom]

pending on the track, 99% with just three legs. so it's a dumb ass rule
Beaten by 25, then follow up with one of the bottom 1% slowest works.
Yup, he's sound. :bang:

[chadk66]

I was told by a trainer that running a horse who ran on Lasix back in less three weeks (give or take a day or two) is pure folly. Before Lasix horses used to run all time on 6 or 7 days rest. Not so anymore.
Aqu faces two problems. The track surface is bad. It has to be this time of year. You are going to have frozen spots no matter what you do until the frost comes out the ground in march. You can not fool Mother Nature. The horses are bad. NYRA attracts good horses and then they run there until they can't. The good horse go south for the winter, the bad ones stay because of costs. Raising the claiming prices isn't going solve anything. The same horses will be racing.
That said, the AQU inner is my favorite meet of the year. I just wished they would find an extra 2 or 3 starters a race. I am sure at some point AQU will close. Keeping it open for racing just does not make sense on so many levels. A NYRA winter meet (even at Bel) may have go away because the race horse shortage. Something has give with cheap horses running in the winter. There are just too many tracks chasing the same horses.that trainer isn't very smart to make generalizations like that. no two horses are the same. I'll use the same example I used right above. Had a lasix mare that ran every 12-14 days for years and rarely missed the board. Taking blanket approaches to things like this is assinine at best.

[Tom]

Over 900 horse in m y study ran back in 14 days or less.
How many DAYS of full cards lost does that come out to?

[taxicab]

Make sure and read all of those rulings - especially the Chris Englehart one.
Almost all of the recent ones are not med violations.
Make sure you learn how to count.
Englehart has at least 10 medication violations showing in the allotted time frame.
It looks like the site goes back 10 years or so(perhaps Englehart has some older hot tests on his jacket). :eek:
The chemical trainers are well above the norm when it comes to catastrophic injuries.
Truth be told I was growing tired of cluttering up my post with individual violations........so I just put the blocks up for Chemical Chris & Bruce Juice.
BTW......CE second most recent was this Doozy:


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=26361&moveto=47&recount=48&EPID=6956&L=Englehart&M=J.&F=Chris&clearsearch=YES

[nijinski]

Who was the trainer?

The first Hizo the second one Persaud .

[mountainman]

I'd need proof of some correlation between recent activity and catastrophic breakdown. My intuition says given a large sampling of starters, horses that have been AWAY from the races pose the bigger risk factor for jocks.

I would assume dropping to 8 races is a compensatory measure intended to maintain current field size? Even so, both the 14-day and 25-length rules will make it harder to close entries. So I sympathize with the racing office.

Also, there is a certain mystique in wintertime about quick turnarounds that speak to trainer intent and produce explosive efforts. And aren't such instances part of the history and lore of cold weather racing in New York?

One thing is certain: these new rules make it harder for owners to stay afloat.

[davew]

I guess the good old days of watching the likes of Oscar Barrera run a claimer 6 times a month are over at Aqueduct.

[Stillriledup]

Quick turnarounds are mostly done because the horse is feeling so good, the trainer wants to get him or her back on the track....so, those horses aren't likely to break down. The rule is probably to prevent mismanagement of horses that the connections know the won't own after the race or they can get rid of easily.....so, the rule, while unfair to the ones who are legitimately sound and back in because they're sharp, is made to help the horses who are being rushed back recklessly.

If there was no claiming races and the connections knew they would own that runner unless she was sold privately, might not be as eager to rush them back, those horses would get managed like "good horses" and not like disposable commodities.

[cj]

The thing I'd like to see is claiming tags increased at least 50% for the purse levels, probably more. That would cut down on a lot of the crap we are seeing right now with horses being dropped right off the claim. The purse to claiming tag ratio is out of whack and it isn't good for horses or bettors.

[mountainman]

I guess the good old days of watching the likes of Oscar Barrera run a claimer 6 times a month are over at Aqueduct.

Cracking up here. He's a guy I was thinking of. I haven't followed New York much lately, so I'm mired in the past.

[Robert Fischer]

There are well-meant quick turnarounds, and then there are barns who just run 'em till they drop.

A look at the odds offers a rough guess.

[Robert Goren]

So much for the statistical aberration theory. Even NYRA is not going with that anymore.

[GatetoWire]

Make sure you learn how to count.
Englehart has at least 10 medication violations showing in the allotted time frame.
It looks like the site goes back 10 years or so(perhaps Englehart has some older hot tests on his jacket). :eek:
The chemical trainers are well above the norm when it comes to catastrophic injuries.
Truth be told I was growing tired of cluttering up my post with individual violations........so I just put the blocks up for Chemical Chris & Bruce Juice.
BTW......CE second most recent was this Doozy:


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=26361&moveto=47&recount=48&EPID=6956&L=Englehart&M=J.&F=Chris&clearsearch=YES

Why is it a doozy? Based on what I'm hearing he's choir boy if that is all he got caught for.
Many, Many others using way crazier stuff.

[Robert Fischer]

I'm going to be unpopular and a bit of a d-bag here, and offer my opinion on several posts.

I DO NOT want to discourage anyone from venting and posting their opinions,

I want to encourage debate. Feel free to reply and disagree. :ThmbUp:

First - My own opinion that(in spite of the mild 'uproar') these rules are very minor.
These new rules will do nothing to curb breakdowns. It's all PR.
NYRA can't be responsible for every horse running.
The trainer, vets and owners are the ones responsible. The trainer is the one in the stall everyday.
Tell me how any of these new rules will prevent a patched up horse from going to the gate?
I agree with you in general, and commend you for seeing it for what it is. PR is very important however, and when it comes to racing, a good PR move is worth praise. (Most corporations are automatic with PR and it is a bit slimey, but racing is so inept with using the media, that even PR is a good sign).
I also think it sets a good precedent, however minor.


They do not affect a large number of horses or trainers and the things they do affect aren't even necessarily correlated to what we are trying to reduce.

I do like that "safeguards" have been incorporated in the screening process and love the potential of the step, but this is very superficial, and it's biggest effect is the ability to publicly say "We care, and we have taken steps.."

I see 2 fundamental things regarding our due diligence




Maintain the Track
Screen the horses for Soundness
I've also stated that in addition to MUCH MUCH better screening of the horses, we should


Incorporate 'Safeguards' into the Screening process
This means using subjective common sense or incorporating basic, common-sense related objective rules

25 lengths back is pretty much on the right track. 7days is debatable as being nonsense, but it sounds good, and is well-meant, and most importantly it sets a precedent for 'incorporating safeguards'.


Now on to the d-baggery by me:


I saw this post and saw a couple entries by a stable that seemed to run their horses back after less than 14-16 days so I got curious and decided to look up the stable (Reyana Racing) and their horses to see if their was a trend. Unfortunately there was...
There's nothing wrong with bringing a horse back after less than 14-16 days. (Well now there is, due to it being a rule)
I think you had the right intentions and feelings, but it would be very easy to read your post and come away with the idea that running horses back on short rest is somehow unethical or inherently bad. That simply isn't true. I don't mean to defend the specific barn you bring up, but details bother me. I'm a nerd. We could find a ton of horses brought back <14 days. The vast vast majority would be ethical. The unethical ones would be due to lousy creepy trainers whose quick turnarounds were part of a comprehensive unethical process.

How about the Elephant in the room..... :eek:
... [multiple overage links to trainers the OP felt were prominent]
Again your post is in the right frame of heart, but medication overages are hardly the elephant in the room.
We have a system. The system allows a certain amount of overages at a certain level of punishment. Most trainers are willing to take that punishment level for what they feel are necessary vet medications.
That isn't to say that PED use isn't a real problem. It certainly is. Every athlete with money behind them is using or has used at some time or has considered using - including equine. The cat is out of the bag, and racing's regulations are clearly not catching the explosive form reversals. I'm going to assume that the PED stuff was where your heart was in this post, excuse my nerd response concerning the multiple links on overages that you posted. Feel free to correct me.
If they installed a synthetic surface on the inner track, they'd almost certainly reduce the fatality rate without having to resort to all of these rules and regulations, some of which are curious to say the least.
I deleted my original response, but since I'm being a jerk about the details and accuracy, I'll give this another go.
Your post makes no sense because you a saying that a radical surface change would somehow be less complicated and easier solution than the very minor rule changes.
We have yet to correlate the breakdowns on the inner to the surface itself, and many believe that it has more to do with cheap horses being treated as commodities than it does the surface. Not only does your contrast to "resorting to all these rules" make no sense as being more convenient than changing the surface to synthetic, it arguably wouldn't address the fundamentals behind the problem. That is before even considering all of the negative perception toward a synthetic surface.

[chadk66]

If the track vet was doing his/her job senseless rules like this wouldn't have to be put in place. But what would completely nullify any inclining for a rule like this would be a national drug policy with some serious teeth.

[Stillriledup]

If the track vet was doing his/her job senseless rules like this wouldn't have to be put in place. But what would completely nullify any inclining for a rule like this would be a national drug policy with some serious teeth.

That's a tricky call, because if the jock says he or she is "good to go" why would the vet override them?

What's your experience with vets and scratching horses that the jock said they were willing to ride?

[Robert Fischer]

Cracking up here. He's a guy I was thinking of. I haven't followed New York much lately, so I'm mired in the past.
Oscar was before my time but I remember Rick Dutrow with a Riccio NY-bred named WILLY BEAMIN

6/20/2012 WINS a 64K optional claimer @ 6-1
4 DAYS later WINS MIKE LEE NY stakes
2 months rest
8/22 WINS ALBANY Stakes
3 DAYS later 8/25 WINs KINGS BISHOP! @ 11-1 w/ a perfect trip. My best day betting in '12.
Month off
9/30 2ND in Oklahoma Derby
Month and a half off
11/17 2nd in G3 Discovery
5 DAYS later 11/22 last in FALL HIGHWEIGHT carrying top weight (133lbs)
These were well-meant entries where the guy trained his butt off.

[Robert Fischer]

If the track vet was doing his/her job senseless rules like this wouldn't have to be put in place. But what would completely nullify any inclining for a rule like this would be a national drug policy with some serious teeth.

drugs are hard to regulate.

Even in the Olympics, everyone cheats.

It's a hard topic to discuss, because people believe what it says on TV.

Drug rules are important, and the best rules and testing can prevent stuff that harms the animal and provides an unfair advantage or disadvantage.

It's really really complicated. Sometimes banning 1 drug 'forces' the cheaters to use a drug that is less healthy in order to beat the testing change.
Sometimes banning another drug causes an expensive undetectable substitute where instead of having 8 out of 10 trainers cheating,
only 3 out of 10 who really invest into cheating and have the biggest cheating budget, then get a huge advantage...
Many many other complications...

It's a tough topic flat out. It's a topic that the public is grossly misinformed about. Very complicated.

[chadk66]

That's a tricky call, because if the jock says he or she is "good to go" why would the vet override them?

What's your experience with vets and scratching horses that the jock said they were willing to ride?the vet's job isn't to be persuaded by a jockey. it's not hard to see a lame horse when your a vet and look at them every day. and these guys make notes on how some of these horses travel so they can compare what they've seen in the past. there are jocks that get very few mounts that will ride a three legged horse just to try and get on more horses. And honestly, I've had some riders, both jocks and exercise riders that can't tell when a horse is traveling off.

[thespaah]

Reading my mind. One step further. What happens when that low performing jock is 20 back in the stretch on a horse that is obviously not right, and he damn sure doesn't want to finish 25 behind? Where does his mind go? Ease? Go to the whip?

There has to be a better way to determine a poor performance.
I agree. If a jock has to urge a spent horse just get within 25 lengths of the winner at the line, causing am injury or breakdown, the effect of the mandate is reversed...
An arbitrary "25 length rule" used solely as a determining factor for a poor performance is not good enough.

[chadk66]

drugs are hard to regulate.

Even in the Olympics, everyone cheats.

It's a hard topic to discuss, because people believe what it says on TV.

Drug rules are important, and the best rules and testing can prevent stuff that harms the animal and provides an unfair advantage or disadvantage.

It's really really complicated. Sometimes banning 1 drug 'forces' the cheaters to use a drug that is less healthy in order to beat the testing change.
Sometimes banning another drug causes an expensive undetectable substitute where instead of having 8 out of 10 trainers cheating,
only 3 out of 10 who really invest into cheating and have the biggest cheating budget, then get a huge advantage...
Many many other complications...

It's a tough topic flat out. It's a topic that the public is grossly misinformed about. Very complicated.then by all means let's just scrap all drug rules and testing since trainers will get around them anyway. It would save the industry a pile of money and all the handicappers will be working on a level playing field:bang:

[thespaah]

are these rules just for Aqueduct or for all 3 tracks?
I read "At Aqueduct until further notice"...

[Robert Fischer]

...
Drug rules are important, and the best rules and testing can prevent stuff that harms the animal and provides an unfair advantage or disadvantage.
...
Very complicated.

then by all means let's just scrap all drug rules and testing since trainers will get around them anyway. It would save the industry a pile of money and all the handicappers will be working on a level playing field:bang:

.

[thespaah]

How about the Elephant in the room..... :eek:


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=1778&moveto=10&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=2122&moveto=11&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=316&moveto=12&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=3306&moveto=14&recount=25&From=SRCH&EPID=257611&L=Jacobson&M=%20&F=David&DDS=1/1/2001&DDE=12/31/2020&SHOWSEARCH=NO&ALL=YES&ALL=YES&Letter=J


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=11629&moveto=1&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=14704&moveto=2&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=19914&moveto=3&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=22391&moveto=4&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RRReport=21466&moveto=7&recount=7&EPID=273125&L=Rodriguez&M=R.&F=Rudy&clearsearch=YES


https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RTReport=2&EPID=6956&L=Englehart&M=J.&F=Chris&clearsearch=YES :bang:

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/default.asp?RTReport=2&EPID=1073&L=Levine&M=N.&F=Bruce&clearsearch=YES :eek:
Here what bugs me about this.....This guy gets fine after fine. Has shelled out tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Yet, he keeps up doping his horses.
Apparently, the fines are of little consequence compared to the purse percentage he receives.
IMO, each positive for a banned substance should on the first offense be accompanied by a fine equal to the dollar amount paid to that trainer. With a minimum fine of $1000. The next violation, the fines double. The next is a suspension of not less than 14 RACING days.....The next a one year revocation of license to be recognized by ALL racing jurisdictions in North America. The next, permanent revocation of all licenses( Trainer, owner)
Yes to some this may seem draconian, but as long as we have chemists and not trainers, the game is going to be looked upon as one having little credibility.
Maybe it's time to have state legislatures look into deeming these drugs "controlled substances" and as such, possession or use of them by all except licensed veterinary personnel, be deemed a felony.

[chadk66]

Here what bugs me about this.....This guy gets fine after fine. Has shelled out tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Yet, he keeps up doping his horses.
Apparently, the fines are of little consequence compared to the purse percentage he receives.
IMO, each positive for a banned substance should on the first offense be accompanied by a fine equal to the dollar amount paid to that trainer. With a minimum fine of $1000. The next violation, the fines double. The next is a suspension of not less than 14 RACING days.....The next a one year revocation of license to be recognized by ALL racing jurisdictions in North America. The next, permanent revocation of all licenses( Trainer, owner)
Yes to some this may seem draconian, but as long as we have chemists and not trainers, the game is going to be looked upon as one having little credibility.
Maybe it's time to have state legislatures look into deeming these drugs "controlled substances" and as such, possession or use of them by all except licensed veterinary personnel, be deemed a felony.not only that he is probably cashing in big time at the window. Should be three strikes and your out.

[JustRalph]

not only that he is probably cashing in big time at the window. Should be three strikes and your out.

This is the part that is invisible to "us"

I guarantee some of these guys are cleaning up. I stood in line behind a famous trainer at Keeneland one day. He had a horse in a race a half hour from when we were in line. I watched him drop several hundred dollar bills on the clerk. I asked the clerk who he bet (I was about 3 behind him) the clerk said he couldn't even remember, he just hears numbers (made sense)

Of course I looked at the horse in the next race. I also looked at my software and saw that the trainer had about 5 horses running that day. I couldn't decipher who he might be betting. Of course a half hour later his horse wins at 11-1 and the tri and super were huge. I'm guessing he cleaned up.

This doesn't count their family members betting online etc. I can only assume this happens everywhere.

I flat asked Cot Campbell if I should bet his horse once. he was holding court at the top of a staircase at Keeneland. He looked right at me and said he didn't bet the horse. Of course he paid $90 bucks to win an hour later :lol:

[Tom]

Oscar was before my time.....

Oscar once claimed a horse in the first race, who finished 30 lengths behind, and raced him back int he 8th race. 3-5, won.

[mountainman]

Oscar once claimed a horse in the first race, who finished 30 lengths behind, and raced him back int he 8th race. 3-5, won.

Yes. Quickly wormed the horse, had his teeth done, put him on a good feeding program, cleaned his sheath,,gave him a goat..etc..etc....

[jross0108]

There's nothing wrong with bringing a horse back after less than 14-16 days. (Well now there is, due to it being a rule) I think you had the right intentions and feelings, but it would be very easy to read your post and come away with the idea that running horses back on short rest is somehow unethical or inherently bad. That simply isn't true. I don't mean to defend the specific barn you bring up, but details bother me. I'm a nerd. We could find a ton of horses brought back <14 days. The vast vast majority would be ethical. The unethical ones would be due to lousy creepy trainers whose quick turnarounds were part of a comprehensive unethical process.

I'm not saying that running a horse back in less than 14 days is unethical or bad. Many trainers have shown success doing this but the barn that I mentioned hasn't shown success in doing this with any of their horses. I could see where a horse has been on a layoff for 2 months or so and after the first race off a layoff they decide to run the horse back in 10 days and the horse wins. But this barn routinely runs horses off less than 14 day layoffs with no success. At that point I don't see how they could say that what they are doing is good for the horse. It's hard for me to believe that running a horse 26 times over the course of a year (Front Cover Dream),with the longest layoff being 42 days, is good for a race horse.

[Robert Goren]

I agree. If a jock has to urge a spent horse just get within 25 lengths of the winner at the line, causing am injury or breakdown, the effect of the mandate is reversed...
An arbitrary "25 length rule" used solely as a determining factor for a poor performance is not good enough.We are not talking 10 lengths here. 25 lengths is a long way. It is not like there is an unreasonable standard to get reinstated either. a 53 half is pretty easily meant by even half-way sound horses. Sound horses do get beat by 25 lengths sometimes when they are entered way over their heads or they run into a "buzzsaw", the WO rule corrects those cases easily. I don't see a problem with the rule.

[JustRalph]

We are not talking 10 lengths here. 25 lengths is a long way. It is not like there is an unreasonable standard to get reinstated either. a 53 half is pretty easily meant by even half-way sound horses. Sound horses do get beat by 25 lengths sometimes when they are entered way over their heads or they run into a "buzzsaw", the WO rule corrects those cases easily. I don't see a problem with the rule.

I don't think the workout rule corrects anything.............. especially a 25 L loss.

Lots of PR in these new rules........very little actual fixes for anything. The claiming price change will do more than anything

[MadWorld]

That's a tricky call, because if the jock says he or she is "good to go" why would the vet override them?

If you see a jockey ride a horse you bet on as if he didn't care about trying for a 3rd or 4th placing, would you accept whatever his explanation was for a perceived non effort? Or would you question it?

[Stillriledup]

If you see a jockey ride a horse you bet on as if he didn't care about trying for a 3rd or 4th placing, would you accept whatever his explanation was for a perceived non effort? Or would you question it?

Why would there be any explanation? If You're a jockey, ride hard to the wire, that's what they're being paid to do. If you just let these riders "explain away" why they grabbed a hold and didnt ride all the way, they can just manipulate races knowing the judges will just buy whatever the are selling.

Its part of the handicapping game, when you place a bet, the jock riding your mount all the way is a bonus because you can't ever expect it to happen...if it happens it happens, but you can never count on it.

The guy on the 10 horse in the 4th at Big A, what was that? The guy stopped riding with half the stretch remaining and was lucky to hold 3rd...that's the type of stuff that really irks bettors, just ride to the wire, we're not asking them to cure cancer.

[PaceAdvantage]

You don't like the new rules? Seems like they're a good thing.Good for who?

[PaceAdvantage]

I was told by a trainer that running a horse who ran on Lasix back in less three weeks (give or take a day or two) is pure folly. Before Lasix horses used to run all time on 6 or 7 days rest. Not so anymore.
Aqu faces two problems. The track surface is bad. It has to be this time of year. You are going to have frozen spots no matter what you do until the frost comes out the ground in march. You can not fool Mother Nature. The horses are bad. NYRA attracts good horses and then they run there until they can't. The good horse go south for the winter, the bad ones stay because of costs. Raising the claiming prices isn't going solve anything. The same horses will be racing.
That said, the AQU inner is my favorite meet of the year. I just wished they would find an extra 2 or 3 starters a race. I am sure at some point AQU will close. Keeping it open for racing just does not make sense on so many levels. A NYRA winter meet (even at Bel) may have go away because the race horse shortage. Something has give with cheap horses running in the winter. There are just too many tracks chasing the same horses.Do you ever read the shite you post up on this board? Totally clueless speaking in the form of an expert...lovely...carry on genius.

[PaceAdvantage]

So much for the statistical aberration theory. Even NYRA is not going with that anymore.Because they're "forced" to "do something" because of knee-jerk idiot reactionaries on internet message boards.... :lol:

And elsewhere...

[Stillriledup]

Good for who?

Maybe for the "equine athletes"?

[PaceAdvantage]

Maybe for the "equine athletes"?Says who? Did they offer empirical evidence to support these new regulations?

Or are they operating on the knee-jerk principle? If they presented long terms studies, I'm ready to read it...send me the link.

[Stillriledup]

Says who? Did they offer empirical evidence to support these new regulations?

Or are they operating on the knee-jerk principle? If they presented long terms studies, I'm ready to read it...send me the link.

Why do you need a study, 14 days "Rest" is better than 2 thru 13 days rest. Its simple math.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why do you need a study, 14 days "Rest" is better than 2 thru 13 days rest. Its simple math.You're insufferable.

Why do you insist on acting the part of the simpleton at times?

[Stillriledup]

You're insufferable.

Why do you insist on acting the part of the simpleton at times?

You're screaming for proof, how about some proof from you that what they're doing is a bad idea? You're the one challenging the idea....why should the idea makers come up with the proof, they have already made their decision, you need to come up with proof as to why they're wrong.

[Grits]

These new rules will do nothing to curb breakdowns. It's all PR.
NYRA can't be responsible for every horse running.
The trainer, vets and owners are the ones responsible. The trainer is the one in the stall everyday.
Tell me how any of these new rules will prevent a patched up horse from going to the gate?

We can change rules. Any time. We can't change people.

There's a problem at Aqueduct; its not with the track's surface. Its with people.

In this case, the trainers, some of whom lack integrity, and also, care for the horses entrusted to them. If these breakdowns cannot be greatly reduced, though it would take some hard thought, maybe winter racing will be cut back, considerably.

.... I can't watch their racing anymore. I appreciate every day that they are wise in making the decision to cancel.

[PaceAdvantage]

You're screaming for proof, how about some proof from you that what they're doing is a bad idea? You're the one challenging the idea....why should the idea makers come up with the proof, they have already made their decision, you need to come up with proof as to why they're wrong.Screaming? hardly

If you're going to mess with the very fundamental nature of the game, and take away an owner's/trainer's decision making ability as to what time frame is best to run their horse back in, then you'd better come up with a damn good supporting argument as to why you're doing so, complete with some non-small-sample proof that running back in less than 14 days is more likely to kill/injure my horse.

Anything less is PANDERING to the lowest common denominator, and that's never productive.

You really are a troll, aren't you? I mean, I just reread again your reply I've quoted above, and I can't believe you type such drivel and then act all shocked and surprised when people call you out all over this board for being a twit.

[chadk66]

We are not talking 10 lengths here. 25 lengths is a long way. It is not like there is an unreasonable standard to get reinstated either. a 53 half is pretty easily meant by even half-way sound horses. Sound horses do get beat by 25 lengths sometimes when they are entered way over their heads or they run into a "buzzsaw", the WO rule corrects those cases easily. I don't see a problem with the rule.they wouldn't pull this crap at Belmont Park because of the whoopin Secretariat laid on em

[MadWorld]

Why would there be any explanation? If You're a jockey, ride hard to the wire, that's what they're being paid to do.

So at SRU Downs, the jockey tells the vet if a horse is sound and the bettors tell the jockey how to ride?

If you just let these riders "explain away" why they grabbed a hold and didnt ride all the way, they can just manipulate races knowing the judges will just buy whatever the are selling.

So a vet should take the word of any jockey that says their horse is sound . . . but here you say they are liars that manipulate races? Interesting way to look at things.

[Stillriledup]

Screaming? hardly

If you're going to mess with the very fundamental nature of the game, and take away an owner's/trainer's decision making ability as to what time frame is best to run their horse back in, then you'd better come up with a damn good supporting argument as to why you're doing so, complete with some non-small-sample proof that running back in less than 14 days is more likely to kill/injure my horse.

Anything less is PANDERING to the lowest common denominator, and that's never productive.

You really are a troll, aren't you? I mean, I just reread again your reply I've quoted above, and I can't believe you type such drivel and then act all shocked and surprised when people call you out all over this board for being a twit.

You stay classy now, you hear? :D

[Stillriledup]

So at SRU Downs, the jockey tells the vet if a horse is sound and the bettors tell the jockey how to ride?



So a vet should take the word of any jockey that says their horse is sound . . . but here you say they are liars that manipulate races? Interesting way to look at things.

On the first point. The bettors aren't telling the jockey how to ride, they're teling him TO ride. Big difference. Not a lot to ask for a jock to ride hard all the way to the end.... not sure when this became so much to ask.

Your second point, im not sure when i said "liars manipuate races" but if i did, maybe i misspoke. I think there's a difference between sound and whether or not a jockey wants to ride the mount.

[elhelmete]

The "pre-amble" from the three involved parties to these changes are as follows.

FROM NYRA "The safety of our equine athletes and jockeys at Aqueduct Racetrack is a high priority," stated Christopher Kay, Chief Executive Officer and President. "In that spirit, the New York Racing Association continues to work together with the NYTHA leadership and the New York State Gaming Commission in these important endeavors."

FROM NYSGC
"The measures announced by NYRA today constitute an important step toward addressing the troubling situation at Aqueduct. We continue to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of each fatality and work closely with NYRA management in order to determine if additional actions need to be taken to protect horses and riders,"

FROM HORSEMEN
"New York horsemen continue to work with the New York Racing Association to make adjustments and raise the bar to protect our equine athletes and their riders on their backs,"

There's nothing of substance there linking the changes to verifiable improvements. Too bad they can't be more forthright...I think?

The 53s workout penance after a poor performance seems innocent enough I guess, would be interesting to look at a sample of past works/performances to see how this would have worked out in retrospect. I scanned several days of works at AQU and BEL and saw a handful of 53+ half mile works. Not a ton.

The hike in bottom level MCL...the cutback to 8 races on some days...the 15 days between entries...are these meant to be considered synergystically? Are they trying to force the real bottom level to stable elsewhere?

[Robert Goren]

they wouldn't pull this crap at Belmont Park because of the whoopin Secretariat laid on emNo problem, the horses who ran behind Secretariat would just have to have a 53 WO before they ran again which they probably did anyhow. A horse has to be pretty slow not to work in 53.

[LottaKash]

We have created a generation of "Drug Addicted" equines, and the degeneration of the breed is really starting to show....

How long can any junkie-horse last before they begin to deteriorate to the point of becoming both chronically unhealthy and lame ?...

That is how it is with humans who take certain meds for a long time, so why would anyone believe that it would be any different with the ponies as well, in the long run ?..

[PaceAdvantage]

You stay classy now, you hear? :DYou reap what you sow around here...

[davew]

On the first point. The bettors aren't telling the jockey how to ride, they're teling him TO ride. Big difference. Not a lot to ask for a jock to ride hard all the way to the end.... not sure when this became so much to ask.

Your second point, im not sure when i said "liars manipuate races" but if i did, maybe i misspoke. I think there's a difference between sound and whether or not a jockey wants to ride the mount.

I do not have a problem seeing a jockey ease up on a horse when they feel the horse has nothing left. An example is an early speed horse that is slowing at the top of the stretch as a big group comes sweeping by.

You suggest the jockey push to the finish line, even though exhausted horses have a tendency to drift, or stumble, or take a bad step and break down. Do you really feel like bettors would prefer to see horses break down 50 yards before the finish as the jockey rides hard to the end?

So what about the jockey? Are you going to go to their funeral? Visit them in the hospital and tell them being paralyzed isn't all that bad or a 6 month unpaid leave will only make them stronger and better?

I agree with many of your ideas SRU, but sometimes you do not think things through. NYRA is trying to protect horses and jockeys on their property.

[Robert Goren]

If you can't handle jockeys not fighting for fourth place, don't bet supras.

[Inner Dirt]

This 14 day between starts rule is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Put the onus on the Owner, Trainer and the Vets to make sure the horse is ready to race.

Lots of trainers have excellent records with starts between 7-14 Days on the Inner over the past few years (Gary Gullo, Patrick Kelly, Eddie Keneally, Tom Morley to name a few).

Show me the stats that show racing within 14 days causes breakdowns.

I actually read that a few times because I could not believe it. Coming back quickly is usually a sign of fitness and a trainer wanting to strike while the iron is hot. I am also baffled at the need to run 53 flat to prove fitness if beaten by 25 lengths or more. Bottom level maiden claimers at minor tracks work that fast, I even think a mule could do that if you pushed him.

[Stillriledup]

I do not have a problem seeing a jockey ease up on a horse when they feel the horse has nothing left. An example is an early speed horse that is slowing at the top of the stretch as a big group comes sweeping by.

You suggest the jockey push to the finish line, even though exhausted horses have a tendency to drift, or stumble, or take a bad step and break down. Do you really feel like bettors would prefer to see horses break down 50 yards before the finish as the jockey rides hard to the end?

So what about the jockey? Are you going to go to their funeral? Visit them in the hospital and tell them being paralyzed isn't all that bad or a 6 month unpaid leave will only make them stronger and better?

I agree with many of your ideas SRU, but sometimes you do not think things through. NYRA is trying to protect horses and jockeys on their property.

I would send flowers to their funeral.

If you're not Secretariat and run each quarter faster than the previous one, you're "tiring". A typical sprint in 111 flat might see fractions of 22, 45 and 111...that means, the horses went 22, 23 and 25....that's tiring. They're all tiring.

As far as jockeys being paralyzed, that has nothing at all to do with this discussion, a jock can get paralyzed in a starting gate accident, its a dangerous occupation, but my "Request" that they ride all the way to the wire has no correlation on whether or not a jock gets paralyzed.

There's also a difference between beaten horses and horses who are still running on and in contention for board spots. I'm not suggesting a guy who is 25 lengths behind the field whip and slash to lose by 29 instead of 30, i'm talking about a jock who's in the mix for a board spot, is a few strides from the finish and just decides to stop riding.

There are jocks who are "usual suspects" at pulling horses up and not riding them out....some hall of fame jocks who are riding at A circuits "Stop riding" more horses in the lane than a bad jock at a bad track on 3k claimers do. THATS what i'm talking about. The HOF jock riding at Santa Anita is riding, for the most part, high class horses....the low rung jock at Suffolk is riding a lot of very rough traveling cheap claimers and yet, the incidents of "not riding out" can and often happen with elite jocks who usually "stop riding" because they're "disappointed" that they didnt win.

I'm never suggesting a jock do something that he or she feels is putting their lives in jeopardy, but if a jock is worried about body harm and concerned that performing their job is "too risky" than maybe being a jock is not for them and they should consider a different way to make a living....none of this has anything to do with a bettor's lack of sensitivity at wanting his rider to complete the task that he or she is possibly being paid handsomely to complete.

[Robert Goren]

I actually read that a few times because I could not believe it. Coming back quickly is usually a sign of fitness and a trainer wanting to strike while the iron is hot. I am also baffled at the need to run 53 flat to prove fitness if beaten by 25 lengths or more. Bottom level maiden claimers at minor tracks work that fast, I even think a mule could do that if you pushed him. The rule is to prove that a horse can run at least a half of mile. On occasion you will see horse running that are so sore that they lose contact with field before they run a quarter. This could prevent some of that, maybe.

[cj]

Once a jockey gets passed for fifth, shut it down, no problem. But before that I'm with SRU, at least a good hand ride to the wire.

[rastajenk]

But before that I'm with SRU...That had to be hard to type. :p

[Stillriledup]

That had to be hard to type. :p

It was fun to read though. :D

[Robert Goren]

I would send flowers to their funeral.

If you're not Secretariat and run each quarter faster than the previous one, you're "tiring". A typical sprint in 111 flat might see fractions of 22, 45 and 111...that means, the horses went 22, 23 and 25....that's tiring. They're all tiring.

As far as jockeys being paralyzed, that has nothing at all to do with this discussion, a jock can get paralyzed in a starting gate accident, its a dangerous occupation, but my "Request" that they ride all the way to the wire has no correlation on whether or not a jock gets paralyzed.

There's also a difference between beaten horses and horses who are still running on and in contention for board spots. I'm not suggesting a guy who is 25 lengths behind the field whip and slash to lose by 29 instead of 30, i'm talking about a jock who's in the mix for a board spot, is a few strides from the finish and just decides to stop riding.

There are jocks who are "usual suspects" at pulling horses up and not riding them out....some hall of fame jocks who are riding at A circuits "Stop riding" more horses in the lane than a bad jock at a bad track on 3k claimers do. THATS what i'm talking about. The HOF jock riding at Santa Anita is riding, for the most part, high class horses....the low rung jock at Suffolk is riding a lot of very rough traveling cheap claimers and yet, the incidents of "not riding out" can and often happen with elite jocks who usually "stop riding" because they're "disappointed" that they didnt win.

I'm never suggesting a jock do something that he or she feels is putting their lives in jeopardy, but if a jock is worried about body harm and concerned that performing their job is "too risky" than maybe being a jock is not for them and they should consider a different way to make a living....none of this has anything to do with a bettor's lack of sensitivity at wanting his rider to complete the task that he or she is possibly being paid handsomely to complete.Perhaps you could compile a list and not bet those jockeys in the lower rungs. That would be a chance to profit from information not readily available. Hey you take any edge you can get in this game.

[Stillriledup]

Perhaps you could compile a list and not bet those jockeys in the lower rungs. That would be a chance to profit from information not readily available. Hey you take any edge you can get in this game.

The way that i've taken advantage of this is knowing the usual suspects who stop riding for reasons other than the horse is about to break down or collapse from exhaustion. I bet against them when they're on a horse who i think will give them "Signals" that they want to bear out or bolt or just act unprofessional...when i see that behavior from a horse...and one of these "stop riding guys" gets on board, i'll try and beat that horse if he is a favorite or short enough price to make it worth my while.

I think its also a skill to know which horses got stopped on because they're just rough gated and not traveling great (so you're really not looking to follow that horse going forward anyway) and which ones got stopped on because the jock just threw in the towel because he saw he couldn't actually win.

But, for the most part, i'd just rather have the jocks ride out the mounts.....any 'easing up" should be horse specific and not jock specific....because there are jocks who are "usual suspects" at easing up horses, i know that plenty of ease ups are jock specific and those are the ones i'm complaining about not the other kind.

[Stillriledup]

Duke of the City and Vegas No show, both racing tomorrow in the first at Aqu (one will probably scratch, as per usual with this trainer entering horses he has no plan on running quite often)

Both claimed from Kelly Breen off disasterous PPs and now being cut in half and in thirds in price.

Duke of the City seemed to fall off the map in his first 2 starts of 2014, looked like something was seriously wrong, but alas, he shipped to Parx, added huge front bandages and romped 2 wins in a row with vicious Beyer figs....than had an even effort at the Spa and then was virtually eased at Laurel....then the guy spent 25k on a horse who was eased which makes no sense because the horse is now in for 12,500.

Vegas no show claimed off the same "disasterous" PPs from the same trainer, and is now worth over 20k less than he was on Nov 30th.

Are these 2 runners "100% sound"? The PPs seem to indicate "something is wrong" but since NYRA is stepping up efforts to make sure only sound horses race at Aqu, should i assume, as a bettor, these horses are 100% sound with absolutely nothing wrong with them?

What's the thought process with the new protocols?

[OTM Al]

A trusted source of info

http://tenoonan.com/2015/01/22/aqueduct-racing-deaths-are-not-the-whole-story-republished/

[lamboguy]

in may i hyper extended my knee after running for about 5 miles. ny knee got still and very painful. i went to the doctor and he took x-rays and an mri. he didn't find any damage.

i went home and raised up my leg and iced down my knee. there is no way that i could run, i had my troubles walking as i developed pain after small walks. i have been stretching out my calf and the pain has been decreasing slowly. the doctor wanted to tap my knee with acid and i wouldn't let him, knowing that the pain would go away but in the long run there will be more deterioration to the joint. so instead of running i have been on a stationary bike and swimming to burn off my calories and get me warmed up for a little weight training.

my guess is that horses have had hard and tough campaign's and have been patched together due to the high purses to keep them running. when you tap those horses and add in some bute and banamine, the horses will not feel their injuries and will run fast. but not good for them in the long run.

i know this goes on because when i was running horses i never used those procedures and at the end i couldn't win. i could never beat the horses that had everything. other trainer's and owner's knowing that my horses never got help wound up getting claimed from me and winning out for the new trainer's. i guess it makes them smarter and better than myself, so seeing what the reality is ahead of time, i have surrendered. unfortunately for the game there have been lots of other people that won't tap and give pain medication's that have also given up on the game. so what you have left are plenty of people that don't mind giving horses plenty of help with their pain and that does lead to very nasty injuries for the horse.

in Hong Kong none of this is allowed, so when a horse has aches and pain's he is given time off to heal. that is why they are racing at older ages there. when they are in training they also run more often than on our continent. an owner that wants to be in the game has to treat the horse right because he can't replace the horse with another one to race.

[Tall One]

We have created a generation of "Drug Addicted" equines, and the degeneration of the breed is really starting to show....

How long can any junkie-horse last before they begin to deteriorate to the point of becoming both chronically unhealthy and lame ?...

That is how it is with humans who take certain meds for a long time, so why would anyone believe that it would be any different with the ponies as well, in the long run ?..


Nice take. :ThmbUp:

[chadk66]

in may i hyper extended my knee after running for about 5 miles. ny knee got still and very painful. i went to the doctor and he took x-rays and an mri. he didn't find any damage.

i went home and raised up my leg and iced down my knee. there is no way that i could run, i had my troubles walking as i developed pain after small walks. i have been stretching out my calf and the pain has been decreasing slowly. the doctor wanted to tap my knee with acid and i wouldn't let him, knowing that the pain would go away but in the long run there will be more deterioration to the joint. so instead of running i have been on a stationary bike and swimming to burn off my calories and get me warmed up for a little weight training.

my guess is that horses have had hard and tough campaign's and have been patched together due to the high purses to keep them running. when you tap those horses and add in some bute and banamine, the horses will not feel their injuries and will run fast. but not good for them in the long run.

i know this goes on because when i was running horses i never used those procedures and at the end i couldn't win. i could never beat the horses that had everything. other trainer's and owner's knowing that my horses never got help wound up getting claimed from me and winning out for the new trainer's. i guess it makes them smarter and better than myself, so seeing what the reality is ahead of time, i have surrendered. unfortunately for the game there have been lots of other people that won't tap and give pain medication's that have also given up on the game. so what you have left are plenty of people that don't mind giving horses plenty of help with their pain and that does lead to very nasty injuries for the horse.

in Hong Kong none of this is allowed, so when a horse has aches and pain's he is given time off to heal. that is why they are racing at older ages there. when they are in training they also run more often than on our continent. an owner that wants to be in the game has to treat the horse right because he can't replace the horse with another one to race.well it's kind of a double edged sword. Bute is really nothing more than an anti-inflamatory like ibuprofen is to us. They get aches and pains, as humans do, from training every day. It isn't something you want to use on a daily basis because it's tough on their system. But used on occasion and for a few days leading up to a race is really not a big deal. Banamine is a better pain killer in regards to joints than bute is. Banamine wasn't allowed on race day in nearly all states back when I was training. Then it was only Kentucky. I really don't like the idea of Banamine being used on race day because it can hide enough lameness to a rider that they don't realize the horse has an issue. So personally I would prefer it wasn't allowed. As far as corticosteroids, it boils down to common sense and having some respect for the animals. Injecting a joint which has inflamation or a short term issue isn't a thing of concern. One injection in a joint will do virtually no long term harm to a horse. It's the four or five injections where you do the damage. If a horse has a chip or a fracture in a joint then honestly there is no reason to inject it, just get it taken care of and get the horse on the road to recovery. The drug Adequan came out when I was training. Initially it needed to be injected in the joint. then later they discovered it was just as effective IM. This drug has been proven to regenerate cartilage. A lot of trainers use it as a theraputic measure for their horses. It's a once a month shot I believe. It's used as a preventive med now which I think is a wonderful idea.

[whodoyoulike]

well it's kind of a double edged sword. Bute is really nothing more than an anti-inflamatory like ibuprofen is to us. They get aches and pains, as humans do, from training every day. It isn't something you want to use on a daily basis because it's tough on their system. But used on occasion and for a few days leading up to a race is really not a big deal. Banamine is a better pain killer in regards to joints than bute is. Banamine wasn't allowed on race day in nearly all states back when I was training. Then it was only Kentucky. I really don't like the idea of Banamine being used on race day because it can hide enough lameness to a rider that they don't realize the horse has an issue. So personally I would prefer it wasn't allowed. As far as corticosteroids, it boils down to common sense and having some respect for the animals. Injecting a joint which has inflamation or a short term issue isn't a thing of concern. One injection in a joint will do virtually no long term harm to a horse. It's the four or five injections where you do the damage. If a horse has a chip or a fracture in a joint then honestly there is no reason to inject it, just get it taken care of and get the horse on the road to recovery. The drug Adequan came out when I was training. Initially it needed to be injected in the joint. then later they discovered it was just as effective IM. This drug has been proven to regenerate cartilage. A lot of trainers use it as a theraputic measure for their horses. It's a once a month shot I believe. It's used as a preventive med now which I think is a wonderful idea.

I agree with Lamboguy and your post above, especially the bold part.

I don't think these "steps" address these obvious problems.

[Appy]

Recommended reading from today's TDN:

The Equine Biological Passport: Has Its Time Come?

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/shared_content.cfm?id=1791

[PaceAdvantage]

A trusted source of info

http://tenoonan.com/2015/01/22/aqueduct-racing-deaths-are-not-the-whole-story-republished/I can't agree more with the following from Mr. Noonan...I posted similar thoughts a week or two ago only to get the third degree from our pal SRU:

If NYRA explained their rationale with supporting data, it would be one thing. But this smacks of nothing more than a PR fig leaf to get past a crisis.

[Stillriledup]

I can't agree more with the following from Mr. Noonan...I posted similar thoughts a week or two ago only to get the third degree from our pal SRU:

Is that what disagreeing with you called, the third degree? :D

I'm assuming this is about the 14 day rule, what exactly is the problem with making sure horses are fit and ready to go and not being entered and raced like disposable items?

[nijinski]

I was sorry to learn Italian Rules took a turn for the worse .
The ten year old had two prior DNFs and some suspect gaps .
I think the history of this 10 year old was indicative of impending
doom.

Miss Macarena , euthanized after 1/22 race . First out after Englehart
claim .
Very unfortunate . :(
RIP!

[OTM Al]

Expect the foolishness and PR based moves to continue

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/89736/state-control-of-nyra-may-be-extended

The only thing that ever sunset in NY was the takeout rate issue. Wonder why....

[JustRalph]

Too much money involved........ they won't let go

[OTM Al]

Too much money involved........ they won't let go

The tolls where supposed to stop on the NY Thruway I believe in 1990. I can verify that they are still collecting tolls as of last weekend. They will never give it up. I expect an announcement of higher takeout in the near future. It is the NYS way. They will suck it dry and only discard it when they believe it is permanently worthless.

[aaron]

The tolls where supposed to stop on the NY Thruway I believe in 1990. I can verify that they are still collecting tolls as of last weekend. They will never give it up. I expect an announcement of higher takeout in the near future. It is the NYS way. They will suck it dry and only discard it when they believe it is permanently worthless.
Sad but true. Also,they will never address the odds drop problem. Maybe,I'm wrong,but the only reason the breakdown problem is addressed is PR. Racing has the ability to fix these issues,but as long as everyone is cutting their cut of the pie,it is easy to ignore the problems. See Sheldon Silver.

[OTM Al]

Sad but true. Also,they will never address the odds drop problem. Maybe,I'm wrong,but the only reason the breakdown problem is addressed is PR. Racing has the ability to fix these issues,but as long as everyone is cutting their cut of the pie,it is easy to ignore the problems. See Sheldon Silver.

Can't wait to see who Shelly rolls on. Perhaps the most corrupt NY politician and that is saying something. I actually saw a report that showed breakdowns have been very consistent in NY if you add racing and training hours. The anomaly this year and in 2011-12 was that none were getting injured during training, only during racing for all to see. Thus cutting back racing decreases the likelihood people will see it, not the chance of it happening. I wonder if the odds issue you are talking about is due to the change from United Tote to AmTote almost 2 years ago. Everyone I heard from thought United Tote was a better run company...

[aaron]

Can't wait to see who Shelly rolls on. Perhaps the most corrupt NY politician and that is saying something. I actually saw a report that showed breakdowns have been very consistent in NY if you add racing and training hours. The anomaly this year and in 2011-12 was that none were getting injured during training, only during racing for all to see. Thus cutting back racing decreases the likelihood people will see it, not the chance of it happening. I wonder if the odds issue you are talking about is due to the change from United Tote to AmTote almost 2 years ago. Everyone I heard from thought United Tote was a better run company...
Call me cynical,but I think people are canceling or betting after the race has started. Remember the Pick 6 scandal. They got caught because they were greedy. I am of the opinion,there are some sharp people out there,who are not overly greedy and are taking money from the pools everyday. Why this is never investigated is beyond me.

[OTM Al]

Call me cynical,but I think people are canceling or betting after the race has started. Remember the Pick 6 scandal. They got caught because they were greedy. I am of the opinion,there are some sharp people out there,who are not overly greedy and are taking money from the pools everyday. Why this is never investigated is beyond me.
I've always had trouble believing this sort of thing. The pick 6 happened as an inside job and could only happen that way. The tote companies are required to do audits, so the only way this could work is an inside job where people have figured out how to beat the audit. You also have to believe that no one talks. I firmly believe people always talk. No, I think this is more a result of more refined data and methods combined with high speed last millisecond betting into the tote.

[Inner Dirt]

Maybe someone who knows something about breeding (of which I know nothing) can answer this question. Is it possible that since many champion horses are turned out to stud at such a young age infirmary can be slowly bred into most Thoroughbred lines? My point is wouldn't it be better to bred stallions that had long productive injury free careers that had proven durability, than some triple crown trail 3 year old they retire with a bone chip in the knee at 3? I understand they are trying to maximize what a horse is worth and try to retire him at the peak of his career. I suspect some of these so called horses retired young to stud because of injury weren't injured at all, and the owners retired him before he was exposed as an over hyped phony.

[chadk66]

the problem is the majority of the injuries are the result of a bad step, hitting legs on things to hurt them, bad track conditions, etc. there is absolutely no way to pin point whether genetics has anything to do with it. It's just like bleeders. environmental factors have as much to do with bleeding as anything else.

[alhattab]

NY Times editorial in today's paper called for NY to take aggressive measures to end exploitation of weaker thoroughbreds, including "severely cutting back on winter racing or eliminating it altogether". I don't think these editorials come out of the blue, and in my view the Times is a mouthpiece for its preferred government officials. It is the government that is exploiting the increase in injuries with its ultimate motive to end winter racing. No winter racing, no need for the Big A. this meet will meet its demise shortly. If not during this meet then within a few years, and the land will be developed.

[Cholly]

Jobsite safety is a subject I know something about. For ten years I was responsible for the safety program for a mid-size industrial construction firm (50 employees + subcontractors), and we outperformed industry averages by huge margins. Jobsite rules are important but the overwhelming factor governing success of a safety program is establishing a “culture of safety”.

A culture of safety means the workers and supervisors constantly, and I mean constantly, receive the message, “Safety is of paramount importance; absolutely everyone is responsible for safety; if we don’t get it right, no one will have a job to come to.” The silly signs hanging everywhere, and the meetings where we endlessly preached practices that should be obvious to a 10 year old--those things don’t directly contribute to safety, but they are valuable in reinforcing the culture of safety.

So rather than debating individual components of NYRA’s recent directives, perhaps the more useful question is “As a package, do these directives contribute to a culture of safety?” NYRA can establish any number of rules, and perform endless pre-race vet examinations, but ultimately it’s going to be the horsemen who determine how safe the racing is. So as a whole, did this package clearly deliver the message to the trainers “You better get this right, or you’re not going to have a track to race at.”

NYRA executives have been very clear in stating four goals: to lead their industry in the prestigousness of its races, to lead their industry in purses paid; to lead their industry in handle generated, and to lead their industry in conducting the safest racing. The mortality rate of the Inner meeting having blown up in two of the last four years has sabotaged their meeting a very important metric--they could hardly stand pat. In any case, the past month has surely reinforced a view that Aqueduct continues to be a drag on accomplishing their goals.

[Stillriledup]

Jobsite safety is a subject I know something about. For ten years I was responsible for the safety program for a mid-size industrial construction firm (50 employees + subcontractors), and we outperformed industry averages by huge margins. Jobsite rules are important but the overwhelming factor governing success of a safety program is establishing a “culture of safety”.

A culture of safety means the workers and supervisors constantly, and I mean constantly, receive the message, “Safety is of paramount importance; absolutely everyone is responsible for safety; if we don’t get it right, no one will have a job to come to.” The silly signs hanging everywhere, and the meetings where we endlessly preached practices that should be obvious to a 10 year old--those things don’t directly contribute to safety, but they are valuable in reinforcing the culture of safety.

So rather than debating individual components of NYRA’s recent directives, perhaps the more useful question is “As a package, do these directives contribute to a culture of safety?” NYRA can establish any number of rules, and perform endless pre-race vet examinations, but ultimately it’s going to be the horsemen who determine how safe the racing is. So as a whole, did this package clearly deliver the message to the trainers “You better get this right, or you’re not going to have a track to race at.”

NYRA executives have been very clear in stating four goals: to lead their industry in the prestigousness of its races, to lead their industry in purses paid; to lead their industry in handle generated, and to lead their industry in conducting the safest racing. The mortality rate of the Inner meeting having blown up in two of the last four years has sabotaged their meeting a very important metric--they could hardly stand pat. In any case, the past month has surely reinforced a view that Aqueduct continues to be a drag on accomplishing their goals.

Great post, i really enjoyed reading that.

I agree with a culture of safety.....and putting the horse and that horse's CAREER first. Sure, you can run a horse back in 4 days and the horse will win and all that, but it really comes down to trainers learning to manage horses as if they will manage that horse for life. You manage differently if you know that if the 'well' on a horse runs dry, its your problem and not the next guy's problem.

[Tom]

Typically, in problem solving, you define the problem, define possible causes for it, investigate them, narrow them down to the root cause(s) and then implement corrective actions. Seems NYRA just jumped to the corrective actions.

Not likely to fix anything, unless, as Al suggested, the problem they defined was not the breakdowns, but that we found out about them.

I have my own CA......no bets on the inner for any reason.
No palm trees, no green grass, no interest.

Just because they build it is no reason for us to come.

[JustRalph]

Grening DRF

Tons of scratches after NYRA breaks its own rule
Today's card at Aqueduct is decimated because NYRA had to scratch 8 horses _ in addition to 8 previously announced scratches -- because they were running back just 14 days after their previous race.

Thus, today's second and third races only have three horses each, and only win wagering is permitted.

On Jan, 16, in reaction to the spate of equine fatalities at the meet, NYRA put out four rules changes they hoped would help prevent more fatalities in the future. One -- which was met with consternation by horsemen -- was that "entries would not longer be accepted ... on any horse that has participated in a recognized race within 14 days of that start. Horses will be permitted to start on the 15th day following said race."

Remarkably, just 6 days later, on Jan. 22, NYRA took entries for today's card and permitted 8 horses that raced on Jan. 11 to run. For Thursday, there are 11 of 63 horses entered that would be running back on the 14th day. They will either have to be scratched or NYRA will revise the rule, which was meant to be temporary. Just not this temporary.

[OTM Al]

Priceless. It almost makes you think they are trying to destroy winter racing.

[cj]

Grening DRF

Tons of scratches after NYRA breaks its own rule
Today's card at Aqueduct is decimated because NYRA had to scratch 8 horses _ in addition to 8 previously announced scratches -- because they were running back just 14 days after their previous race.

Thus, today's second and third races only have three horses each, and only win wagering is permitted.

On Jan, 16, in reaction to the spate of equine fatalities at the meet, NYRA put out four rules changes they hoped would help prevent more fatalities in the future. One -- which was met with consternation by horsemen -- was that "entries would not longer be accepted ... on any horse that has participated in a recognized race within 14 days of that start. Horses will be permitted to start on the 15th day following said race."

Remarkably, just 6 days later, on Jan. 22, NYRA took entries for today's card and permitted 8 horses that raced on Jan. 11 to run. For Thursday, there are 11 of 63 horses entered that would be running back on the 14th day. They will either have to be scratched or NYRA will revise the rule, which was meant to be temporary. Just not this temporary.

Who took the entries? I mean counting to 14 isn't that tough, right?

I'm hoping for some late scratches so we can get a match race, or better yet, a walkover!

[LottaKash]

Priceless. It almost makes you think they are trying to destroy winter racing.


Perhaps at this stage of Thorobred racing, that idea may need further examination....

I mean, with the reality of the shortage of horses these days, that result in less than satisfying numbers when it comes to the number of entrants these days, well, maybe some time off is what is needed for the horses...

When I was a kid, and in the winter, and you asked someone what number came in, you had to check the Florida tracks for that...Meaning there used to be breathers from racing at the NY tracks, and it lent time to heal for the horses, where there is none today...

Horses today are strung out on drugs, and are never given proper time to heal, and it is showing up big time all around the nation...

[chadk66]

they should have passed a rule making you have to run a horse back in ten days:D

[aaron]

I remember reading a handicapping book when I first started handicapping and one of the theories was to avoid horses who haven't raced in 15 days.Back then,we were playing a different game.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I remember reading a handicapping book when I first started handicapping and one of the theories was to avoid horses who haven't raced in 15 days.Back then,we were playing a different game.

Ainslie's "Complete Guide to T'bred Racing" - Steve Crist opened his column on this topic yesterday by making the same point

[drib]

Priceless. It almost makes you think they are trying to destroy winter racing.

I realize that NYRA's CEO has ZERO experience in racing or gambling (recall he is the genius who wanted to partially attribute the NYRA handle decline to the closure of four AC casinos when none took simulcasting), but, judging by this latest fiasco, the whole operation is being run by clowns. Create a silly rule limiting entries to 15 days; break the rule in taking entries; stick to a needless rule to decimate race cards. BTW, in England, it is quite common for winning handicap horses to run back once or twice within a week to avoid the weekly handicapper's upgrades.
I do have one question. Has NYRA reported its fourth quarter and yearly business statistics for 2014? Every other track has.

[OTM Al]

Who took the entries? I mean counting to 14 isn't that tough, right?

I'm hoping for some late scratches so we can get a match race, or better yet, a walkover!

That would be the racing office, headed by Martin Panza, who was in the meeting that made the rule.....

[Tom]

Who took the entries? I mean counting to 14 isn't that tough, right?

It's rocket science, I tell ya, rocket science. :lol:

Seriously, people need to be fired. Today.

I see a couple of the M12 horse have made the move to M16.
That one hit a homer, too, it appears.

[OTM Al]

It's rocket science, I tell ya, rocket science. :lol:

Seriously, people need to be fired. Today.

I see a couple of the M12 horse have made the move to M16.
That one hit a homer, too, it appears.

They already got rid of a large number of people who actually did stuff and have marginalized many others, so not sure it would matter much....Maybe they should hire a new executive.

[lamboguy]

they just gave away the easiest pick 5 i have ever seen in that place. the thing paid $280.

whatever they are doing at the Big A is just fine with me, and i urge them to keep up the great work.

[PaceAdvantage]

NY Times editorial in today's paper called for NY to take aggressive measures to end exploitation of weaker thoroughbreds, including "severely cutting back on winter racing or eliminating it altogether". I don't think these editorials come out of the blue, and in my view the Times is a mouthpiece for its preferred government officials. It is the government that is exploiting the increase in injuries with its ultimate motive to end winter racing. No winter racing, no need for the Big A. this meet will meet its demise shortly. If not during this meet then within a few years, and the land will be developed.It's the only logical conclusion. There is a big fat casino sitting there that only wants to get bigger and fatter. They need something new to promote.

It's only a matter of time before Aqueduct goes the way of the dinosaur...and everyone who complained about Aqueduct on here will start complaining that there is no more Aqueduct... :rolleyes:

[Stillriledup]

Funny how out of all the scratches, they let a horse run in the 3rd who was claimed for 35 and dropped for 10 for a trainer who is responsible for at least some of the breakdowns that prompted the rules changes in the first place.

[PaceAdvantage]

Perhaps at this stage of Thorobred racing, that idea may need further examination....

I mean, with the reality of the shortage of horses these days, that result in less than satisfying numbers when it comes to the number of entrants these days, well, maybe some time off is what is needed for the horses...

When I was a kid, and in the winter, and you asked someone what number came in, you had to check the Florida tracks for that...Meaning there used to be breathers from racing at the NY tracks, and it lent time to heal for the horses, where there is none today...

Horses today are strung out on drugs, and are never given proper time to heal, and it is showing up big time all around the nation...Winter racing and the Aqueduct inner was something I looked forward to back in my salad days of racing...late 80s, early 90s and thereabouts...

Nobody had a problem with it back then...now all of a sudden, it has to go...ridiculous if you ask me...

[davew]

Who took the entries? I mean counting to 14 isn't that tough, right?

I'm hoping for some late scratches so we can get a match race, or better yet, a walkover!


If the racing secretary has 2 week cycles (like many do), it is going to be more difficult to match the races available to horses on the facilities.

Not sure what the rule is but if a horse runs Sun in the first race, can they run again on Sun (2 weeks from now) in the 3rd race?

14 days = 336 hours? or something else?

[Tom]

The rules states 15th day, not 336th hour.

[LottaKash]

Winter racing and the Aqueduct inner was something I looked forward to back in my salad days of racing...late 80s, early 90s and thereabouts...

Nobody had a problem with it back then...now all of a sudden, it has to go...ridiculous if you ask me...

I can certainly understand your fondness for the winter-inner at the Big-A, and I am sure there are others that share that notion also, but the fact remains, it is a very different game these days than from the times you hold in such high regard...

I simply don't believe that the game can sustain itself, as is....There is a severe shortage of healthy race worthy horses nowadays...And what with this overmedicated bunch that passes for healthy field numbers, I don't think that it is too ridiculous to try and remedy this fact, based on that...

Perhaps, curtailing some racing at least, may go a long way in the remedial process...The way it is now, as I see it, racing, especially winter racing, is in very sad shape, and future is bleek.. And I don't think that the days off is to blame much either...A Band-Aid maybe...

[Tom]

What's worse than a 5 horse field with a 3-5 favorite?
A 4 horse field with a 1-5 favorite after a gate scratch.

[Robert Fischer]

When you struggle to adapt the entries, it becomes even more difficult to believe that these rule changes where the result of deep insight and careful planning in the first place...

[Stillriledup]

When you struggle to adapt the entries, it becomes even more difficult to believe that these rule changes where the result of deep insight and careful planning in the first place...

They made some changes and time will tell if any of them work out, i believe that there were more things they could have done to make it safer for the horses that they didn't do, maybe in due time they'll get around to them.

[davew]

What's worse than a 5 horse field with a 3-5 favorite?
A 4 horse field with a 1-5 favorite after a gate scratch.

From DRF ->


A similar issue is likely to occur on Thursday as 11 of the 63 horses entered would be running back on the 14th day after a race, and therefore will have to be scratched. That includes six of the eight entrants in the fourth race, which means it will be a match race between Painted Poney and Epiphany.




Will they run a match race in the 4th? How do they split the purse (assuming both cross finish line) ?

[Tom]

This is getting ridiculous.:lol::lol::lol:

[Robert Fischer]

This is getting ridiculous.:lol::lol::lol:

Don't worry.
Another week or two and they will figure out how to take entries.

[chadk66]

just remember there is no cure for stupid

[Inner Dirt]

I remember reading a handicapping book when I first started handicapping and one of the theories was to avoid horses who haven't raced in 15 days.Back then,we were playing a different game.

Do harness horses still run every week? When I was last playing them seriously in the late 80's a pacer or trotter that had taken more than 10 days off was suspect unless he or she was a recent shipper.

[Ruffian1]

All this does is reaffirm the complete , total and constant confusion that is not only the NYRA but most of racing . As previously stated, it's the Barney Fife type stuff that blows your mind when you stop and realize how big the sport is. Yet, the right hand rarely knows what the left hand is doing.

The condition book was printed weeks ago and laid out months ago. All that needed to happen was for the "rules committee" to talk to the racing secretary and coordinate any changes to coincide with the next condition book that was being written and finalized for print. Or discuss when certain races that might tie together come back, which often times is 14 days and make the rule 13 days.

Seems so simple doesn't it?

Yet, here we are.

[mountainman]

People go to prison these days for kicking cats out of their garbage, so how long can it be until some resourceful and well-bribed politician uses the 'animal cruelty' angle to kill a racetrack?

[Tom]

Is there a penalty for entering an ineligible horse?
Are trainers who enter sooner than 15 days getting fined for it?

[mountainman]

Is there a penalty for entering an ineligible horse?
Are trainers who enter sooner than 15 days getting fined for it?

Yes there is, Tom. But there are often extenuating circumstances, and trainers have ways to squirm out of getting fined. And, believe it or not, ignorance of the law IS sometimes an acceptable excuse in horseracing, if the board of stewards is soft on misdemeanors.

[LottaKash]

Do harness horses still run every week? When I was last playing them seriously in the late 80's a pacer or trotter that had taken more than 10 days off was suspect unless he or she was a recent shipper.

They sure do run just about every week....That every week rule is somewhat relaxed now, but not by much....Where you could once just about set a clock by it, nowadays it really goes horse by horse for frequency....Still a weekly start is very average..

Just off the top of my head, I'd say that the average Harness overnite horse runs about at least 25 times a year, and less would be health issures, and yet there are very many that will go 35 to50 times a year...

So, for me this "14 days thing" is laughable....And, that is because when I was a younger man, some 50 years ago, I was a switch-hitter at the ponies ( bet both breeds equally), but one thing I remember clearly, is that Thoro-bred horses ran much more frequently, and the cards were almost overloaded with entries every day...

What went wrong ?...

[Ruffian1]

People go to prison these days for kicking cats out of their garbage, so how long can it be until some resourceful and well-bribed politician uses the 'animal cruelty' angle to kill a racetrack?

I have seen the idea kicked around for all vet work done on a horse to follow the horse from trainer to trainer. At first glance it seems to be a logical way to help the horses and the trainers, being as it will allow a newly claimed horse to have a map about it's bad ankle or knee or sore shin or soft tendon that can answer the questions the trainer would like answered. But if you think about it...

Doing this might very well kill claiming as we know it. Why? Because once a trainer claims a horse and the news that follows says the horses ankle has been tapped 6 times by previous trainer's, the new trainer not only comes under scrutiny if they might feel that draining the joint is a viable remedy,( even though at that point, it's not), but even if the trainer works their brains out to get the horse right without invading the joint, and seemingly does, and then something happens to that horse, that trainer becomes fully liable and plenty of lawyers would line up to go before a jury and try and crush the current trainer for even running the horse at all , even though that trainer did not invade the joint and did everything legally therapeutic to help the horse. The trainer would be painted as an animal abuser and it would be career over for that person. Maybe jail time.
As it stands, trainer's are indeed liable already for their actions, and they should be. But they can't claim a horse and wait for paper work that makes them eat the horse because of other trainer's actions. Even if they give the horse 3 months, a lawyer can simply argue the horse needed 6 months. It would become a legal circus. Trainer's would have no choice but to stop claiming IMO.

Are there trainers out there that, if what I suggested happened to them it might be best for horses , customers jockey's, etc.? Yes, there are some I am sure. But for every one that is out there, there are a ton of them that would not deserve this fate.
Because of today's "liability" chase in all aspects of every business, putting this in place will put every claiming trainer at great speculative risk. And while on the surface, the idea tries to help, it is my opinion that it would end claiming as we know it.
It's a tricky subject and a good one to address for sure. Hopefully, smarter people than myself will come up with something that helps everyone in regards to this matter .

[Tom]

Why not implant a chip in the horse and have all that data ready in real time - just scan the horse and you get the history.

You could also put the last date it ran in there........just saying! :D

[Stillriledup]

Claiming races come down to guesswork. You're essentially asking a person to invest thousands and sometimes tens of thousands on a whim. Also, 14 day rule aside, connections are more likely to "do the right thing" by the horse if they know the horse is THEIR problem going forward and not the "other guys problem". Claiming races give unscrupulous characters a good "out" to not do the right thing, they know there's an "avenue" to get rid of that horse in ways other than a private purchase.

[cj]

Doing this might very well kill claiming as we know it.

Would be one of the best things to happen to the sport in my opinion.

[LottaKash]

Would be one of the best things to happen to the sport in my opinion.

Amen to that !... :jump:

[MONEY]

Is there a penalty for entering an ineligible horse?
Are trainers who enter sooner than 15 days getting fined for it?

I think that the person in charge accepted the entries knowing that they will have to be race day scratches in order to fill the races. I don't believe that there will be any fines.

[Ruffian1]

Is there a penalty for entering an ineligible horse?
Are trainers who enter sooner than 15 days getting fined for it?

Yes. I think it was a 100 or 200 dollar fine if it caused a late scratch. Something like that. They probably will moving forward but I would guess that they get a warning this time. But who knows.

But if it goes unnoticed, and the horse earns money in the race, another trainer or owner has 48 hours to file a protest and get a hearing. If the 48 hours passes, it's official.

I did this once. The horse was not ineligible, the trainer was ineligible because he had been suspended 2 days earlier for some minor infraction at Del Park and ran a horse in Md. Not a positive, I think it was something like not being licensed and letting the grace period lapse or whatever. You can get a temp license if you ship in but need to get it straight within 30 days. Again, something like that. Bottom line, he did not take care of his business.
He beat me on a Sunday and I read about it in the racing form on Monday that he had been suspended as of that Friday, or something to that effect. I finished second in the race. The suspension follows from state to state in most cases, certainly from Del Park to Md. it does, or at least did. So I filed a complaint within 48 hours and got a hearing.

The owner was a lawyer and was really pissed. He acted like a jerk and was full of tough talk, saying I would have a beard down to my ankles before I ever saw a penny. Blah, blah, blah. Well, he was pretty close as it took at least a year to deal with all his B.S. and challenges to rulings but it cost me nothing as his fight was actually against the state once I showed that he was ineligible. My owners eventually won and got the purse money for 1st and he was DQ'ed.
Kind of felt bad at first but I was working for my owners but after the other owner started in with his nonsense, I didn't feel bad at all.

[Ruffian1]

Why not implant a chip in the horse and have all that data ready in real time - just scan the horse and you get the history.

You could also put the last date it ran in there........just saying! :D

You are probably closer than we think with this.:D

[OTM Al]

Does anyone think that raising the bottom levels may increase the chance of injury rather than decrease it? As an economist the first thing you look for is incentive. Is there incentive here for lower class runners to go elsewhere or would they just run in the higher level event? Running in the higher event means they are facing stronger horses than they should. Being herd animals, they will try to run with the stronger animals. The harder effort could result in more missteps by the low level animal. It may be there would be less breakdowns if they were allowed to run 8k claiming races.

[Tom]

Discussion of this by Rick Violette and Steve Byk on the Monday ATR show.
First hour.

Apparently, the choices available were implement the 14 day rule or shut down.

[JustRalph]

Does anyone think that raising the bottom levels may increase the chance of injury rather than decrease it? As an economist the first thing you look for is incentive. Is there incentive here for lower class runners to go elsewhere or would they just run in the higher level event? Running in the higher event means they are facing stronger horses than they should. Being herd animals, they will try to run with the stronger animals. The harder effort could result in more missteps by the low level animal. It may be there would be less breakdowns if they were allowed to run 8k claiming races.

I thought about this. It just seems counter intuitive.

[Tom]

Where do they think those 12.5 maidens are going to go?
Two already moved into 16K maidens.

Is Penn short of horses?
FL is closed so they can't dump there here (where we call them form horses!)

[cj]

Does anyone think that raising the bottom levels may increase the chance of injury rather than decrease it? As an economist the first thing you look for is incentive. Is there incentive here for lower class runners to go elsewhere or would they just run in the higher level event? Running in the higher event means they are facing stronger horses than they should. Being herd animals, they will try to run with the stronger animals. The harder effort could result in more missteps by the low level animal. It may be there would be less breakdowns if they were allowed to run 8k claiming races.

Maidens run over their heads all the time, the vast majority of them, without injury. This is a meaningless step as far as safety goes, but I don't see it increasing injuries. The difference is too small.

[Ruffian1]

Where do they think those 12.5 maidens are going to go?
Two already moved into 16K maidens.

Is Penn short of horses?
FL is closed so they can't dump there here (where we call them form horses!)

Md. for sure and I would imagine Philly.

[mountainman]

I have seen the idea kicked around for all vet work done on a horse to follow the horse from trainer to trainer. At first glance it seems to be a logical way to help the horses and the trainers, being as it will allow a newly claimed horse to have a map about it's bad ankle or knee or sore shin or soft tendon that can answer the questions the trainer would like answered. But if you think about it...

Doing this might very well kill claiming as we know it. Why? Because once a trainer claims a horse and the news that follows says the horses ankle has been tapped 6 times by previous trainer's, the new trainer not only comes under scrutiny if they might feel that draining the joint is a viable remedy,( even though at that point, it's not), but even if the trainer works their brains out to get the horse right without invading the joint, and seemingly does, and then something happens to that horse, that trainer becomes fully liable and plenty of lawyers would line up to go before a jury and try and crush the current trainer for even running the horse at all , even though that trainer did not invade the joint and did everything legally therapeutic to help the horse. The trainer would be painted as an animal abuser and it would be career over for that person. Maybe jail time.
As it stands, trainer's are indeed liable already for their actions, and they should be. But they can't claim a horse and wait for paper work that makes them eat the horse because of other trainer's actions. Even if they give the horse 3 months, a lawyer can simply argue the horse needed 6 months. It would become a legal circus. Trainer's would have no choice but to stop claiming IMO.

Are there trainers out there that, if what I suggested happened to them it might be best for horses , customers jockey's, etc.? Yes, there are some I am sure. But for every one that is out there, there are a ton of them that would not deserve this fate.
Because of today's "liability" chase in all aspects of every business, putting this in place will put every claiming trainer at great speculative risk. And while on the surface, the idea tries to help, it is my opinion that it would end claiming as we know it.
It's a tricky subject and a good one to address for sure. Hopefully, smarter people than myself will come up with something that helps everyone in regards to this matter .

Tx for the response. It was illuminating, but I'm not sure you got the gist of my post.

fwiw, any mandate that vets disclose all treatment procedures not only empowers a new and often unscrupulous element, but would no doubt result in tons of false info being put out there. A hot mess that would favor big and successful barns that put more money in the pockets of vets.

I wonder if handicappers quite realize how complicit some vets are in doping. The romanticized image of some rogue trainer pulling on a ski mask, making sure the coast is clear, and then slipping into the stall with a loaded syringe casts an often inaccurate picture of how cheating transpires. At least pertaining to certain substances.

My intention is not to malign an entire profession. Some vets are ethical. But others will do exactly what a paying client requests. After all, it's the trainer's risk, not the vets.

[fmolf]

Oscar was before my time but I remember Rick Dutrow with a Riccio NY-bred named WILLY BEAMIN

6/20/2012 WINS a 64K optional claimer @ 6-1
4 DAYS later WINS MIKE LEE NY stakes
2 months rest
8/22 WINS ALBANY Stakes
3 DAYS later 8/25 WINs KINGS BISHOP! @ 11-1 w/ a perfect trip. My best day betting in '12.
Month off
9/30 2ND in Oklahoma Derby
Month and a half off
11/17 2nd in G3 Discovery
5 DAYS later 11/22 last in FALL HIGHWEIGHT carrying top weight (133lbs)
These were well-meant entries where the guy trained his butt off.chemically induced entries where the guy got suspended for life!

[classhandicapper]

Not that a plan like this would be easy to implement, but in my handicapping I identify horses as "suspect" when they have multiple layoffs, have started dropping down the class ladder, their speed figures are starting to decline, and they haven't been working between races in their typical pattern (exceptions for some trainers).

I think if you created a list like that, added in vet reports I don't have access to, you could make a great "watch" list.

Once you have a "watch" list, you could apply some rules about running back quickly that would be reasonable and only apply to those horses.

Again, IMO it should not be some arbitrary number like 14 days because my research has indicated that sharp horses run BETTER getting wheeled right back. However, you could cap the number of races in a 30 day period (or 45 or whatever). That way you could wheel a sharp horse back once, but if he's on the list, you can't overdo it.

Something like that at least makes intuitive sense even though I don't have break down data that suggests it would help.

The new rules are well intentioned. They are just bad rules and I suspect there's no data backing them up.

[Ruffian1]

Tx for the response. It was illuminating, but I'm not sure you got the gist of my post.

fwiw, any mandate that vets disclose all treatment procedures not only empowers a new and often unscrupulous element, but would no doubt result in tons of false info being put out there. A hot mess that would favor big and successful barns that put more money in the pockets of vets.

I wonder if handicappers quite realize how complicit some vets are in doping. The romanticized image of some rogue trainer pulling on a ski mask, making sure the coast is clear, and then slipping into the stall with a loaded syringe casts an often inaccurate picture of how cheating transpires. At least pertaining to certain substances.

My intention is not to malign an entire profession. Some vets are ethical. But others will do exactly what a paying client requests. After all, it's the trainer's risk, not the vets.

I understood your post and I agree with it.
The subject just allowed me to ramble. :D

As for this post, you are 100% correct. This is a very accurate description of what I had to deal with in my day when racing against cheaters.

[Ruffian1]

chemically induced entries where the guy got suspended for life!

This is exactly what the NYRA wants you to believe. It is however, completely untrue.

Rick is a brilliant horseman.

I don't expect you to just decide to believe me but maybe believe Mark Twain.

Another poster has this up and it holds true very often, especially in this case.

"" It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled " - Mark Twain

[fmolf]

the only way to really really police racing is to do what the japanese do and monitor and/or control every aspect of racing and training of there horse.....the american way in sports goes like this "If you ain't cheatin,you ain't tryin!"

[Ruffian1]

the only way to really really police racing is to do what the japanese do and monitor and/or control every aspect of racing and training of there horse.....the american way in sports goes like this "If you ain't cheatin,you ain't tryin!"

While I don't know about the Japanese way, I have read several posts eluding to it and their way is probably better. A lot of holes in our system that are exploited by scumbags everyday.

Fixing the cheating is ( was) everything to me, mainly because I had to race against it for years and you can't imagine the daily frustration. It, along with a very short list of other reasons was why I left the game.

The cheatin and tryin thing I get, but I and many many other trainers, vets and jocks never cheated. Ever. And we all tried very hard.

Hopefully things continue to get better in regards to cheating, believe it or not, they are worlds better from what I am told today, than things were back 20 years ago. But obviously , a long way too go.

[cj]

Tx for the response. It was illuminating, but I'm not sure you got the gist of my post.

fwiw, any mandate that vets disclose all treatment procedures not only empowers a new and often unscrupulous element, but would no doubt result in tons of false info being put out there. A hot mess that would favor big and successful barns that put more money in the pockets of vets.

I wonder if handicappers quite realize how complicit some vets are in doping. The romanticized image of some rogue trainer pulling on a ski mask, making sure the coast is clear, and then slipping into the stall with a loaded syringe casts an often inaccurate picture of how cheating transpires. At least pertaining to certain substances.

My intention is not to malign an entire profession. Some vets are ethical. But others will do exactly what a paying client requests. After all, it's the trainer's risk, not the vets.

I'm not sure I can buy that we can't do things right because it will further enable cheaters. If so, that is a serious condemnation of the sport.

[Ruffian1]

I'm not sure I can buy that we can't do things right because it will further enable cheaters. If so, that is a serious condemnation of the sport.

What it is IMO is a serious condemnation of those few that go to great lengths to cheat.

The old question about " is the game on the level"?

The answer is, the games on the level , it's the handful of people in it, that are not.

[aaron]

What it is IMO is a serious condemnation of those few that go to great lengths to cheat.

The old question about " is the game on the level"?

The answer is, the games on the level , it's the handful of people in it, that are not.
I agree,but I also believe there are a handful of bettors who are canceling or betting after the start of races. In essence,there are handful of people cheating in all aspects of the game. The bad part of this,is there are more than a handful of people looking the other way.

[OTM Al]

Maidens run over their heads all the time, the vast majority of them, without injury. This is a meaningless step as far as safety goes, but I don't see it increasing injuries. The difference is too small.

I think on this small move you are right, but I was thinking more about the restriction on regular claiming races that was put in place the first time around. I believe NYRA is not allowed to run below 10K or 12.5K, can't remember which. I think there may be enough difference between that level and the 6.25K level, for example, which is run often enough at places like Keeneland and Gulfstream

[cj]

What it is IMO is a serious condemnation of those few that go to great lengths to cheat.

The old question about " is the game on the level"?

The answer is, the games on the level , it's the handful of people in it, that are not.

If a sport is dominated by cheaters, it is doomed until it is cleaned up. The Tour de France is a shell of what it was. Maybe someday it will return to former glory, but that day is a long way off. Baseball has made a nice comeback, but the stats are showing that it is clean right now.

[classhandicapper]

I wonder if handicappers quite realize how complicit some vets are in doping. The romanticized image of some rogue trainer pulling on a ski mask, making sure the coast is clear, and then slipping into the stall with a loaded syringe casts an often inaccurate picture of how cheating transpires. At least pertaining to certain substances.

My intention is not to malign an entire profession. Some vets are ethical. But others will do exactly what a paying client requests. After all, it's the trainer's risk, not the vets.

I think behind many move up trainers there are actually juice vets, but until they provide vet data we are screwed. You have to try to get to the move up via the trainer.

If you were going to use some kind of vet report to disclose the condition of the horse to management in some effort to prevent breakdowns, it would probably have to be an independent track vet or committee that examines the horses.

[mountainman]

I'm not sure I can buy that we can't do things right because it will further enable cheaters. If so, that is a serious condemnation of the sport.

Pointing out that some vets are unscrupulous somehow qualifies as a condemnation of the entire sport? Excuse me???

Reforms are needed. But that particular proposal would prove quite the Pandora's box. In my opinion.

[mountainman]

I think behind many move up trainers there are actually juice vets, but until they provide vet data we are screwed. You have to try to get to the move up via the trainer.

If you were going to use some kind of vet report to disclose the condition of the horse to management in some effort to prevent breakdowns, it would probably have to be an independent track vet or committee that examines the horses.

Noble idea, Wayne. But nobody could possibly monitor all vet work. And what about outlying farms?? Who is going to monitor what transpires there?? it's unworkable and cost preclusive.

[cj]

Pointing out that some vets are unscrupulous somehow qualifies as a condemnation of the entire sport? Excuse me???

Reforms are needed. But that particular proposal would prove quite the Pandora's box. In my opinion.


You didn't just point to vets, you pointed to horsemen that employ them.

That is what everyone says about any proposal. Until there is true oversight of the horses, nothing is going to change. It has to start somewhere. What we are doing now isn't working.

[mountainman]

I think behind many move up trainers there are actually juice vets, but until they provide vet data we are screwed. You have to try to get to the move up via the trainer.



More info can only help the handicapper if it's accurate, untainted, and the player understands what he is looking at.


No offense, Wayne, I know you're a smart guy and skilled handicapper, but how much do you think you know abt vet procedures?

[cj]

Noble idea, Wayne. But nobody could possibly monitor all vet work. And what about outlying farms?? Who is going to monitor what transpires there?? it's unworkable and cost preclusive.

You can require horses that are going to race to be on the grounds a week prior as a starting point.

[fmolf]

the only answer to the situation is to start doing what baseball has done.First positive test6 mo. ban ,2nd positive test 1yr ban,3rd positive test lifetime ban ...no ifs and or buts!...No the feedman sold me tainted feed,...no more i don't know what the vet gave him....The trainer is responsible as well as the owner and both should be suspended equally.Once the owners can't run the horses they own they will pressure the trainers to stay clean! the big question is...Does racing want to clean up its act?

[mountainman]

You didn't just point to vets, you pointed to horsemen that employ them.

That is what everyone says about any proposal. Until there is true oversight of the horses, nothing is going to change. It has to start somewhere. What we are doing now isn't working.

A bad proposal is a bad proposal. And no place to start. And, ok, pointing out that some horsemen are unscrupulous somehow qualifies as condemnation of an entire sport??

Let's not be coy, we both know there is much to admire and much to be criticized concerning our game. And word -semantics are the most boring of debates.

[mountainman]

You can require horses that are going to race to be on the grounds a week prior as a starting point.

Now stall space becomes an issue. Believe me. And lots of trainers will be unwilling to ship under those circumstances. So fields will be smaller and less diverse. Throwing spaghetti against a wall is ok, but no substitute for thinking things through. Or using real knowledge of how the game works.

[Tom]

Well, the people who run it, who SHOULD know how it works, have a piss poor job so far.

It doesn't matter how much of the game is tainted, it only matters what the public thinks. And Those who know should be out there in front of idiots like Joe Drape and the NitWit Times.

All you Ever hear from the racing industry is it can't be done, we can't do that, that is too much work, that will drive owners out of the game.
In NY, they can't even count to 14.

Maybe we need people running the game who don't know why anything can't be done.

[mountainman]

So pointing out a few unpleasant realities to you guys makes ME part of the problem? Lashing out doesn't advance this discourse.

Have at it guys. I've made my point, and I'm done here. I know from experience where this is headed.

[Tom]

Who's blaming you???

[classhandicapper]

More info can only help the handicapper if it's accurate, untainted, and the player understands what he is looking at.


No offense, Wayne, I know you're a smart guy and skilled handicapper, but how much do you think you know abt vet procedures?

I know absolutely nothing about vet procedures, but I'm capable of compiling stats on the number of horses that move up when Vet "X" takes over the horses for a trainer and vice versa.

Handicappers view the world as some guys being "move up" trainers. IMO, if we knew who the vets were and when they were changed, I think that view would change.

[LottaKash]

I
Handicappers view the world as some guys being "move up" trainers. IMO, if we knew who the vets were and when they were changed, I think that view would change.


I would certainly consider changing my opinion about the current "form cycle" of a horse, if that change occurred, and I knew about it...

[Ruffian1]

I know absolutely nothing about vet procedures, but I'm capable of compiling stats on the number of horses that move up when Vet "X" takes over the horses for a trainer and vice versa.

Handicappers view the world as some guys being "move up" trainers. IMO, if we knew who the vets were and when they were changed, I think that view would change.

When times were really bad in Md. there were 3 small vets that took shots.

The biggest vet firm on the grounds played the game fairly. ALWAYS ! The fair vets probably serviced 70% of all the horses at all 3 Md. tracks back in the day. And I think it was fair to say that those 70% of horses won at least 80% of the races.
Then came the chemistry sneaking into the game. At it's height, the 30% of horses probably won 50-60% of the races. This changed quickly though because plenty of trainers and or owners flocked to the small vets. This lasted a couple of years, maybe a little longer, not sure. So the %'s got all adjusted but the evidence was clear before everyone hopped on the bandwagon of the crooks.
I lost owners because I would not comply, and I lost races because I would not comply. I decided I would sooner leave the game than join the thieves.
Eventually, I did just that.

[Robert Goren]

I believe that the track managements know exactly what is going on. They have made a conscious decision to put in only a token effort to halt the problem. Right now individual track managements/state racing commissions are so scared that if they crack down they will end up with no horses entered. That is why it must be an industry wide effort. At the current time there is no mechanism to implement an industry wide effort, so I am afraid until a substantial number of circuits go out of business, we as bettors have to deal with we have. If the industry gets down to 3 or 4 circuits, the tracks might be able to get together enough to effect real change.

[classhandicapper]

I lost owners because I would not comply, and I lost races because I would not comply. I decided I would sooner leave the game than join the thieves.
Eventually, I did just that.

IMO, this is the bigger problem for the sport (not the perception of horse players).

If you are an owner, trainer, or even a rider, you know you are at a tremendous disadvantage against the cheaters. So you either join them or leave. Many wisely leave. And unfortunately, those leaving are the ones with the highest business ethics and integrity like you.

As a horse player, I may be at a disadvantage against insiders that know exactly what's going on with a horse. But I can compile stats than may give me an edge over other gamblers (at least for awhile). I have friends that are very sharp trainer oriented players. They would probably argue that the cheating is beneficial to them personally as gamblers even though they know it's terrible for the sport.

[Ruffian1]

IMO, this is the bigger problem for the sport (not the perception of horse players).

If you are an owner, trainer, or even a rider, you know you are at a tremendous disadvantage against the cheaters. So you either join them or leave. Many wisely leave. And unfortunately, those leaving are the ones with the highest business ethics and integrity like you.

As a horse player, I may be at a disadvantage against insiders that know exactly what's going on with a horse. But I can compile stats than may give me an edge over other gamblers (at least for awhile). I have friends that are very sharp trainer oriented players. They would probably argue that the cheating is beneficial to them personally as gamblers even though they know it's terrible for the sport.

There is a high percentage of really honest trainers still out there.I promise you that. And, the testing has come really far in their methods of keeping up with the crooks. It was terrible back in the day, but not nearly as bad today.
It might put your mind at ease somewhat if I tell you the following: Most trainers are without a doubt the worlds worst gamblers. Very,very few, probably 1% have a clue as to how to gamble. The ones that talk the loudest about it, are the worst of the worst . Don't be intimidated or feel they know more. Honest as I can be, I don't know of ANY trainer that I know well that I would EVER go 50-50 with and let them handle the money betting. None.
As for inside knowledge, when I left in 2001, I could count one one hand with some digits left, the trainers that actually could identify a bias and tell you why it existed. Basically, nobody knew until the 5th race and even then, I would here them say it is a speed track when indeed it was not speed at all, it was rail. Big difference as you and others here know. That was a tremendous edge for me for claiming purposes. It helped me at least try and stay up with the druggies.
As for the drugs, because the vast majority of them are honest, the mindset is not there like it might be for the customer.
I sure do not want to bash my former colleagues, and I will stand up for them when it is right, but your fears are misguided in this case I believe. I think that because you are so locked in on the gambling angle and constantly look at it from that viewpoint, you might be assuming that they do as well. Again, I ask you to trust me, but they do not, and quite frankly most of could not because they do not understand that angle of the game the way you and other customers do.

I hope that helps you going forward and feel free to follow up if you have anymore questions. Hopefully I can help.

[chadk66]

There is a high percentage of really honest trainers still out there.I promise you that. And, the testing has come really far in their methods of keeping up with the crooks. It was terrible back in the day, but not nearly as bad today.
It might put your mind at ease somewhat if I tell you the following: Most trainers are without a doubt the worlds worst gamblers. Very,very few, probably 1% have a clue as to how to gamble. The ones that talk the loudest about it, are the worst of the worst . Don't be intimidated or feel they know more. Honest as I can be, I don't know of ANY trainer that I know well that I would EVER go 50-50 with and let them handle the money betting. None.
As for inside knowledge, when I left in 2001, I could count one one hand with some digits left, the trainers that actually could identify a bias and tell you why it existed. Basically, nobody knew until the 5th race and even then, I would here them say it is a speed track when indeed it was not speed at all, it was rail. Big difference as you and others here know. That was a tremendous edge for me for claiming purposes. It helped me at least try and stay up with the druggies.
As for the drugs, because the vast majority of them are honest, the mindset is not there like it might be for the customer.
I sure do not want to bash my former colleagues, and I will stand up for them when it is right, but your fears are misguided in this case I believe. I think that because you are so locked in on the gambling angle and constantly look at it from that viewpoint, you might be assuming that they do as well. Again, I ask you to trust me, but they do not, and quite frankly most of could not because they do not understand that angle of the game the way you and other customers do.

I hope that helps you going forward and feel free to follow up if you have anymore questions. Hopefully I can help.I resemble that comment about trainers betting lol. I was horrible so rarely bet. and I mean rarely.

[pandy]

Tons of scratches again today, because of the 14 day rule. Unbelievable.

[FantasticDan]

Tons of scratches again today, because of the 14 day rule. Unbelievable.Match race in the 4th! :jump: :p

For those that are actually thinking about betting AQU today, from @DRFGrening:

Since training ended two hours ago, NYRA maintenance crews have been adding tons of dirt to the inner track. I'm guessing this was done because during training -- and as is currently the case -- temperatures are below freezing. But as the day goes on, the temperature is expected to go above freezing and with the sun out any remaining moisture in the track could thaw and create a wet, heavier racetrack.

I do wonder if the addition of the dirt will make for a deeper, tiring surface anyhow, which, to me, would give the closers an advantage. Given the short fields in 3 of the first 4 races, it would be silly to make any strong assessment on how the track is playing. But it might be worth watching as you get ready to delve into the latter half of the card (races 5 thru 8) which is playable.

[Tom]

The solution:

1. Get a NYRA calendar
2. Put your finger on the date of the race you want to run your horse
3. Move finger up two rows and over 1 square to the left.
4. If your horse last ran on this day or earlier, go ahead and enter.
5. Otherwise, go have breakfast.

Optional: Contact John Conte and see if he will lend you his magnifying glass.

[davew]

From DRF ->


A similar issue is likely to occur on Thursday as 11 of the 63 horses entered would be running back on the 14th day after a race, and therefore will have to be scratched. That includes six of the eight entrants in the fourth race, which means it will be a match race between Painted Poney and Epiphany.




Will they run a match race in the 4th? How do they split the purse (assuming both cross finish line) ?


a couple $12,500 claimers vying for $23,000 in purses

what bets will they have on this race?

[Cholly]

I never bet claiming races, but I put a fiver on this one (on the wrong horse, btw). No way I was going to miss out on this fun! And fun it was--I thought the announcer gave it a great call...but he had to be cracking a smile when he announced, "The field is approaching the gate".

Question, I also put a buck into the grand slam, using Epiphany--am I still alive?

[Tom]

If I were announcing, I would keep calling the second horse as dead last, trails the field, in the back of the pack.....just to piss off the owners! :lol:

If the second horse wins it, I would call a late rally, blowing by half the filed to get up for the win.

Good opportunity to slam a jockey, too - 3 wide in a 2 horse race....duh! :lol:

[cj]

If I were announcing, I would keep calling the second horse as dead last, trails the field, in the back of the pack.....just to piss off the owners! :lol:

If the second horse wins it, I would call a late rally, blowing by half the filed to get up for the win.

Good opportunity to slam a jockey, too - 3 wide in a 2 horse race....duh! :lol:

Needed a Grunder..."...and the last horse away is..."

[johnhannibalsmith]

Needed a Grunder..."...and the last horse away is..."

And Epiphany would have turned into a guitar.

[whodoyoulike]

I haven't read most of these posts. Several have alluded that the primary problem the NYRA is trying to eliminate with these "safety steps" are unscrupulous veterinarians, trainers and/or owners. Since the PP's shows the current medication, owner, trainer and jockey, a simple solution would be to require the inclusion of the vet of record for each horse's running in the PP. Currently, the vet is anonymous until they are caught in illegal activity which is difficult to detect.

[Cholly]

Question, I also put a buck into the grand slam, using Epiphany--am I still alive?

Answer, No I wasn't. If you had any of the 9,452 other dollars in the pool, you had to have the winner to remain in consideration for the $13.90 pay-out.

[Robert Goren]

I haven't read most of these posts. Several have alluded that the primary problem the NYRA is trying to eliminate with these "safety steps" are unscrupulous veterinarians, trainers and/or owners. Since the PP's shows the current medication, owner, trainer and jockey, a simple solution would be to require the inclusion of the vet of record for each horse's running in the PP. Currently, the vet is anonymous until they are caught in illegal activity which is difficult to detect.Unfortunately, the light of day does not kill all bacteria.

[davew]

I never bet claiming races, but I put a fiver on this one (on the wrong horse, btw). No way I was going to miss out on this fun! And fun it was--I thought the announcer gave it a great call...but he had to be cracking a smile when he announced, "The field is approaching the gate".

Question, I also put a buck into the grand slam, using Epiphany--am I still alive?

bummer, you needed winner
$2 GSL (4/1,2,3/2,3,6,11/6,7) Paid $27.80 (4OF4)

But I must admit that win bet takes ???? (can't decide best word here)


The favorite would return $3 for $2 bet
and the longer shot returned $3.80 for $2 bet

with track take and breakage,
people in the business making the decisions can not understand why
casinos, sports, poker, and even the lottery are getting gambling dollars
over the excitement of horse racing.

[FantasticDan]

DRF's David Grening tweeted this today regarding another AQU cancellation:

‏@DRFGrening
Apparently, NYRA concerned with inconsistencies of track due to freeze-thaw scenario that could develop with temps rising to near 40 today.

Canceling today is concrete evidence this NYRA management team wants zero part of winter racing.

[pandy]

It also shows that the comments about the track that were made a few weeks ago, comments stating that the problem is not with the track surface, doesn't make sense. Of course it's the track surface. They raced on the inner track for decades and it was one of the safest tracks in the sport. Now they have this freeze/thaw problem, so something is wrong with the track.

[PaceAdvantage]

So you have more intimate knowledge about the real-time condition of the inner track than the jockeys and NYRA management/track maintenance?

I really don't get these last two comments (Pandy's and Grening's).

Anyone who lives in NY knows this winter has been unusual with all the rain/snow...and freezing rain and ice...and the very REAL freeze/thaw problem...when you have temps in the teens and twenties following a pretty nice snow/ice storm, followed by a 40 degree day, you better believe you are going to have a problem with a wet/slushy frozen track...

These types of temperature swings aren't really normal for February...but yeah, it's probably because NYRA management and the jocks/owners/trainers want NO PART of winter racing.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[westny]

DRF's David Grening tweeted this today regarding another AQU cancellation:

‏

I understood the problems yesterday were not predominately the track itself but the surrounding areas covered with black ice and ice.

I live North of Aqueduct The freezing temps at night, the slow snow-ice melt day until 300pm and then the quick freeze of melted snow is treacherous.

AQU has those paved surfaces around the track,paddock etc that freeze asap.
Horses could break legs just walking to the track :sleeping:

[OTM Al]

I understood the problems yesterday were not predominately the track itself but the surrounding areas covered with black ice and ice.

I live North of Aqueduct The freezing temps at night, the slow snow-ice melt day until 300pm and then the quick freeze of melted snow is treacherous.

AQU has those paved surfaces around the track,paddock etc that freeze asap.
Horses could break legs just walking to the track :sleeping:

FYI, I know those surfaces (at least in the paddock) look paved, but they are not. It is a real heavy duty rubber surface that gives when the horses walk on it. Were it paved it would be extremely dangerous all the time.

[Robert Goren]

FYI, I know those surfaces (at least in the paddock) look paved, but they are not. It is a real heavy duty rubber surface that gives when the horses walk on it. Were it paved it would be extremely dangerous all the time.They are paved at some tracks I have been to.

[OTM Al]

They are paved at some tracks I have been to.

I've been in the paddock/winners circle at Aqueduct, Belmont, Saratoga, Gulfstream and Santa Anita and they all use the same stuff. I would be very surprised if anyone had pavement as a shod horse would very easily slip and fall.

[chadk66]

I have raced at thirteen different tracks and not a one has pavement in their paddocks or the trail to the track.

[Tom]

But even those trails can get icy and dangerous, no?

[OTM Al]

But even those trails can get icy and dangerous, no?

If no one cleans them I suppose though it would be a pretty shoddy organization that would let that happen given the number of groundspeople on staff at any decent track.

[Brogan]

I have raced at thirteen different tracks and not a one has pavement in their paddocks or the trail to the track.
I've never seen pavement in a paddock or the immediate path to the paddock. However, I've had to go across pavement at many locations, to get from the barn to the paddock, so its not entirely soft footing.

[chadk66]

yes that's not uncommon but it's usually just a path a few feet wide. at least my encounters have been like that.

[chadk66]

But even those trails can get icy and dangerous, no?they make this stuff called calcium chloride. they even put it in the dirt on the track to prevent it from freezing:rolleyes:

[Tom]

If no one cleans them I suppose though it would be a pretty shoddy organization that would let that happen given the number of groundspeople on staff at any decent track.

I remember Tony black talking about the paths being in bad shape at Parx last year during the period they lost many days.

[FantasticDan]

NYRA discontinuing the minimum 15-days between starts rule:

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/news/article.cgi?id=48444

[Tom]

Is that because they only race every 16 days now? :D

[Stillriledup]

NYRA discontinuing the minimum 15-days between starts rule:

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/news/article.cgi?id=48444

Panza thanks the horsemen for understanding and support? Why is this rule being scrapped if the horsemen arent complaining about it?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Panza thanks the horsemen for understanding and support? Why is this rule being scrapped if the horsemen arent complaining about it?

It was a dumb rule. You know that.

[Stillriledup]

It was a dumb rule. You know that.

You think the rule would have been more likely to produce breakdowns and injuries?

[Saratoga_Mike]

You think the rule would have been more likely to produce breakdowns and injuries?

No impact, except to prevent healthy, sound horses from running back in fewer than 15 days.

[Stillriledup]

No impact, except to prevent healthy, sound horses from running back in fewer than 15 days.

I think the rule was to help career longevity on most runners as well as protect the horse's who were being rushed back by bad trainers who didnt' want to treat the animal as someone they would own a year or 2 from now. Its all well and good to run horses back fast if they are sound at the time, but how does running them back so quick help that horse down the line? How does a horse in the Randi Persaud barn running 6 times in 1 month (even if the horse is 100 percent sound at the time) help that horse be a productive racehorse 2, 3 or even 5 years from now when he's in someone else's barn?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think the rule was to help career longevity on most runners as well as protect the horse's who were being rushed back by bad trainers who didnt' want to treat the animal as someone they would own a year or 2 from now. Its all well and good to run horses back fast if they are sound at the time, but how does running them back so quick help that horse down the line? How does a horse in the Randi Persaud barn running 6 times in 1 month (even if the horse is 100 percent sound at the time) help that horse be a productive racehorse 2, 3 or even 5 years from now when he's in someone else's barn?

I don't know that specific case, but the exception doesn't disprove the rule (i.e, it was a bad rule).

My bet is there are more breakdowns for horses off 30+ days than those coming back in 10 days. I assume you understand why I say that.

[Stillriledup]

I don't know that specific case, but the exception doesn't disprove the rule (i.e, it was a bad rule).

My bet is there are more breakdowns for horses off 30+ days than those coming back in 10 days. I assume you understand why I say that.

That may be the case, but for this specific rule, i believe that it can only help the longevity of these athletes. The "Game" doesn't care that a trainer is running a "sound horse" 5 times in a month so he can line his pockets, the game cares about that horse being healthy next year and the year after and being managed like he's not a disposable commodity. While the argument can be made that the horse running multiple times in a 2 week span is sound at the time and therefore should be allowed to run, what happens when those races make that sound horse unsound? Than what? Those horses disappear.

If you go back and look at the results from any racetrack 2 years ago, you'll see a LOT of names in the results charts that you "Remember". You'll be like "oh, i remember that horse, i wonder what ever happened to him".

I don't think the 14 day rule will create MORE situations where you look back at results charts 2 years in the past and see more horses that you haven't seen in a while.

The game needs these horses to have long and healthy careers and be managed the right way....not managed like they're throwaways.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think you're wrong. We just disagree.

[Stillriledup]

I think you're wrong. We just disagree.

I might be wrong, but i'd rather be wrong and see the horses treated with some respect and managed like they matter than be right so Joe Blow can line his pockets with his "sound" horse running him 6 times in a month. Thanks for the respectful debate, its ok to disagree, we don't all have to see eye to eye.

[PaceAdvantage]

I might be wrong, but i'd rather be wrong and see the horses treated with some respect and managed like they matter than be right so Joe Blow can line his pockets with his "sound" horse running him 6 times in a month. Thanks for the respectful debate, its ok to disagree, we don't all have to see eye to eye.How do you bet this game? Aren't you the one who sees cheating EVERYWHERE? And often times, cheating is akin to abuse of horse...

[chadk66]

it was one of the dumbest rules ever created. and they now realize that. it's simple as that.

[Cholly]

Here’s the fact: The Inner experienced 14 fatal breakdowns in the first 27 days of racing. After implementing the 15-day rule and other “safety steps”, they ran 14 days with zero fatal breakdowns. Maybe the important thing wasn’t the spacing between races; maybe the important thing was the message Management delivered to Owners & Trainers, “If you keep sending out marginally sound horses, we’re going to restrict your ability to earn money and pay your bills.”

Mr. Kay and Mr. Panza are well aware they could lose their high-paying jobs if the trend from early December & January continues--that’s the kind of scandal that once it hits 60 Minutes requires high-level sacrifices be made to the gods of public opinion. Perhaps erring on the side of excess in implementing "safety steps" was/is likely of little concern to them.

[chadk66]

Here’s the fact: The Inner experienced 14 fatal breakdowns in the first 27 days of racing. After implementing the 15-day rule and other “safety steps”, they ran 14 days with zero fatal breakdowns. Maybe the important thing wasn’t the spacing between races; maybe the important thing was the message Management delivered to Owners & Trainers, “If you keep sending out marginally sound horses, we’re going to restrict your ability to earn money and pay your bills.”

Mr. Kay and Mr. Panza are well aware they could lose their high-paying jobs if the trend from early December & January continues--that’s the kind of scandal that once it hits 60 Minutes requires high-level sacrifices be made to the gods of public opinion. Perhaps erring on the side of excess in implementing "safety steps" was/is likely of little concern to them.If there were 14 fatal breakdowns in the first 27 days of racing I think I'd be looking pretty hard at the track/state vet.

[Stillriledup]

How do you bet this game? Aren't you the one who sees cheating EVERYWHERE? And often times, cheating is akin to abuse of horse...

There's a difference between seeing "cheating everywhere" and blindly accepting that nobody's cheating. They are two different things.

[Cholly]

If there were 14 fatal breakdowns in the first 27 days of racing I think I'd be looking pretty hard at the track/state vet.

C’mon, Chad--you know more about horse-care than 99% of the people reading this forum. Who’s in a position to know if a horse is “at-risk”? The track vet who gets all of maybe ten minutes to inspect a horse....or the trainer who’s been caring daily for the horse, and who knows exactly what medications and injections they’ve been receiving?

Curbing the fatalities can only be accomplished by the trainers and owners. All NYRA can effectively do is put pressure on those parties.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Here’s the fact: The Inner experienced 14 fatal breakdowns in the first 27 days of racing. After implementing the 15-day rule and other “safety steps”, they ran 14 days with zero fatal breakdowns. Maybe the important thing wasn’t the spacing between races; maybe the important thing was the message Management delivered to Owners & Trainers, “If you keep sending out marginally sound horses, we’re going to restrict your ability to earn money and pay your bills.”

Mr. Kay and Mr. Panza are well aware they could lose their high-paying jobs if the trend from early December & January continues--that’s the kind of scandal that once it hits 60 Minutes requires high-level sacrifices be made to the gods of public opinion. Perhaps erring on the side of excess in implementing "safety steps" was/is likely of little concern to them.

How many of the 14 breakdowns were coming back in 14 days or less?

[davew]

I have to wonder if breakdowns occurred less in those 2-5 horse races, rather than the bigger fields like 8 or more horses.

[Stillriledup]

How many of the 14 breakdowns were coming back in 14 days or less?

What about the breakdowns for horses who came back in 14 days or less and didn't break down when they came back fast, but broke down in the subsequent start? Or, didn't break down in the subsequent start, but had the quick turnaround affect their future career going forward. Gotta think big picture.

[chadk66]

What about the breakdowns for horses who came back in 14 days or less and didn't break down when they came back fast, but broke down in the subsequent start? Or, didn't break down in the subsequent start, but had the quick turnaround affect their future career going forward. Gotta think big picture.you answer is exactly why you can't hang this on running a horse back in less than 14 days. way too many variables come into play in this game. Like I've stated before, I've had horses that run back in 12 days and did this for years with no ill effects. this is a horse specific issue, a blanket approach like this will solve nothing and will hurt the industry as a whole. this comes down to trainers knowing what they're doing. and track vets knowing who they are dealing with on the backside. they should know who deserves more scrutiny.