Interesting piece - drug disclosures

[cj]

http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2016/03/arguments-against-drug-disclosures-are.html

[Stillriledup]

One point I think Ellis is making is that by disclosing this stuff to 'average trainers' it would give the average or worse trainer just another 'freebie' which in turn, makes horse training 'easier' than it already is.

We have seen recently that trainers can pop out of nowhere and win .35 pct gone are the days where a trainer would have to work w elbow grease at the bootstraps of an experienced professional trainer to 'learn the ropes' and it would be years before that trainer would be 'ready' to go out on his or her own.

Ellis has a point but his point is only valid if you don't mind Human trainers putting themselves before the welfare of the horse. I'm pretty sure that putting the welfare of the animal first is more important than protecting the livelihood of self proclaimed 'good' trainers since trainers are a dime a dozen and all Easily replaced. The horses? Not as easily replaced.

[burnsy]

Really good article. I'm not familiar with claiming horses but I've done side work for a major car auction. One of the biggest outfits in the country. The one up here runs about 1100-1300 cars through a week. The big dealers sell to the "used dealers". Once the auction gets in full swing there are 10 lanes with 10 auctioneers going at once. Cars are not animals but they are sold with problems just like claiming a horse. But in this day and age there is full disclosure. When the car gets on the block it will get a green light or red light. Green light is pretty much a guarantee, red is "as is". People are even bidding over the net because there's a live feed. Green light purchases are given the opportunity to buy a PSI, Post Sale Inspection. If anything is seriously wrong with a green light vehicle the buyer is allowed arbitration or a full return.

Its not perfect, these guys are after all, car dealers, so every once in a while there are scammers but there is a system to check these guys in place (and security). If the auction allowed rules like the way these horses are sold......they'd be out of business in no time. Its 2016, and only in horse racing would the object be to stick the "other guy" with a lemon, sit there and wonder why new people won't invest and then have the gall to stick up for the current "status quo."

Want a buy a house? No, the banks not allowed to inspect it before they sign on to the mortgage............... :lol: And as always, what about that poor horse? They don't even see where they leave a bad taste in many mouths. In this day and age you can't rationalize this away. its just wrong.

[Donttellmeshowme]

If you claim a horse and need to know everything about the horse then you shouldn't be training or in the business.

[Stillriledup]

If you claim a horse and need to know everything about the horse then you shouldn't be training or in the business.

Can you tell how many injections a horse has had when you get a new horse?

[woodbinepmi]

Can you tell how many injections a horse has had when you get a new horse?
Maybe if you use the same vet.

[cj]

If you claim a horse and need to know everything about the horse then you shouldn't be training or in the business.

I'm sure that is in the best interest of the horse too! :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Nitro]

If you claim a horse and need to know everything about the horse then you shouldn't be training or in the business.
Your opinion is completely off base.
It's not a question of "shouldn't be".
Its a question of why would you want to be!

Maybe you missed this article written 5 years ago about one of the most accomplished trainers in the claiming game:
http://www.drf.com/news/moschera-quits-game-after-25-years

In retrospect, I would certainly value a man's opinion who's entire livelihood depended upon knowing a bit more about horseflesh then someone posting nonsensical comments.
.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Can you tell how many injections a horse has had when you get a new horse?



Absolutely not.

Why do you need to know how many times it's been injected?

What a trainer needs to know is does the horse need to be injected or not?

How many times is insignificant.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Your opinion is completely off base.
It's not a question of "shouldn't be".
Its a question of why would you want to be!

Maybe you missed this article written 5 years ago about one of the most accomplished trainers in the claiming game:
http://www.drf.com/news/moschera-quits-game-after-25-years

In retrospect, I would certainly value a man's opinion who's entire livelihood depended upon knowing a bit more about horseflesh then someone posting nonsensical comments.
.




You got your opinion I have mine.

[Stillriledup]

Absolutely not.

Why do you need to know how many times it's been injected?

What a trainer needs to know is does the horse need to be injected or not?

How many times is insignificant.

I don't agree with that, sorry.

[classhandicapper]

I haven't given this much thought, but perhaps a compromise solution would be for vets to accumulate a file on each horse that remains private between vet/owner/trainer until the horse changes hands. Then the new vet/owner/trainer gets the file. It would kind of be like a patient and doctor. That way a medical record of the horse would exist to protect the animal, but it wouldn't eliminate the claiming game the way it exists now if there's just too much pressure against that idea.

All that said, a friend of mine owns and breeds horses. Just last week I asked why he never claims any horses and he described exactly what this article is saying.

[castaway01]

I haven't given this much thought, but perhaps a compromise solution would be for vets to accumulate a file on each horse that remains private between vet/owner/trainer until the horse changes hands. Then the new vet/owner/trainer gets the file. It would kind of be like a patient and doctor. That way a medical record of the horse would exist to protect the animal, but it wouldn't eliminate the claiming game the way it exists now if there's just too much pressure against that idea.

All that said, a friend of mine owns and breeds horses. Just last week I asked why he never claims any horses and he described exactly what this article is saying.

Your idea is logical and would solve the problem, except there would be enough unethical people that would do things "off the record" to render the solution useless. It would be worth as much as NFL or NHL injury reports.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Your idea is logical and would solve the problem, except there would be enough unethical people that would do things "off the record" to render the solution useless. It would be worth as much as NFL or NHL injury reports.




Exactly. So why are people wanting all of this info when the correct info will never get to the new owner/trainer.


How about this? Claim a horse get the vet to go over it from head to toe and find out what's wrong with the horse and do the necessary steps to get the horse right. Part of being a trainer is getting run out of the horse that the original trainer could not.

[Stillriledup]

Exactly. So why are people wanting all of this info when the correct info will never get to the new owner/trainer.


How about this? Claim a horse get the vet to go over it from head to toe and find out what's wrong with the horse and do the necessary steps to get the horse right. Part of being a trainer is getting run out of the horse that the original trainer could not.

But wouldn't the official vet report be helpful for the well being of the horse?

[Tom]

Curious why some are so heated about this.
Wonder what they are afraid to have other people know?

[Donttellmeshowme]

But wouldn't the official vet report be helpful for the well being of the horse?



If your a trainer that knows what he/she is doing then they don't need the vet report they can figure out what's wrong with the horse and get the horse right.


If your an incompetent trainer then I guess the vet report would do them good.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Curious why some are so heated about this.
Wonder what they are afraid to have other people know?




What they are afraid of is they don't want to do all the work to get the horse right then have a trainer who doesn't know shit get all the knowledge and what they are doing to get run out of the horse. That is called helping out your competition. Let other trainers figure out how to get run out the horse I damn sure don't want to help them out.

[Stillriledup]

If your a trainer that knows what he/she is doing then they don't need the vet report they can figure out what's wrong with the horse and get the horse right.


If your an incompetent trainer then I guess the vet report would do them good.

As someone who cares about animals, I could care less about any of that, the game is about the bettors and the horses, anything that can help the horses should be implemented. You're saying that if a trainer isn't competent, the animal should suffer or possibly be put in harms way. I can't agree with that.

[Donttellmeshowme]

As someone who cares about animals, I could care less about any of that, the game is about the bettors and the horses, anything that can help the horses should be implemented. You're saying that if a trainer isn't competent, the animal should suffer or possibly be put in harms way. I can't agree with that.




What makes you think the animal will suffer? So if you don't give the vet report the animal will suffer? Come on you being paranoid.

[SuperPickle]

I think the boarder issue is even if there was some type of universal record keeping or records attached to horses we all know certain trainers would either not comply or forge it. And we also all know there would no enforcement of it so even if it existed there would no process to force compliance.

We have such basic problems. Look at Parx the last couple of weeks. Some horses have been standing around at Parx waiting to train and then race. Others have quietly been shipped off to random training centers and been in training the whole time. Do the bettors know who's who? Nope.

A world where bettors have access to vet history seems like a pipe dream when I can't even know who's been training where, when.

[Stillriledup]

What makes you think the animal will suffer? So if you don't give the vet report the animal will suffer? Come on you being paranoid.

Poor choice of words on my part, I would just prefer as much disclosure as possible, it's for good of the animal, I could care less about trainers.

[classhandicapper]

Look on the bright side. We probably have a better chance of fixing the horse healthcare system than the people healthcare system. ;)

[barahona44]

Look on the bright side. We probably have a better chance of fixing the horse healthcare system than the people healthcare system. ;)
"If you like your veteranarian, you can keep your veterenarian".

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There are simple things that can be done to address treatment records for horses.

- each horse should have an electronic medical record that is maintained by his veterinarian. There can be discussion about whether this should include medications and supplements. Anything that is an injectable, even if it is a vitamin shot, should be administered by the vet. The vet should be required to keep all records of injections, not the trainer, including what was injected and why. The records should be available to everyone - horses should not be covered by HIPPA - including the stewards, so they can compare medication records to post-race lab reports.

- Trainers should be required to provide a reason for why a horse has not raced in 60 days or more and it should be in the Equibase data base. Take the case of Lady Eli. Obviously we know she was off due to laminitis. But how many other horses have serious illnesses, surgery, or injury that the public is unaware of.

Most horseplayers are unaware of how horses are normally treated with supplements or medication, and this leads to speculation about drugs run rampant. It doesn't help when trainers insist that what they do needs to be kept a secret. It just gives people more reason to believe the worst.

[chadk66]

Absolutely not.

Why do you need to know how many times it's been injected?

What a trainer needs to know is does the horse need to be injected or not?

How many times is insignificant.I kind of agree with your original statement to a point. but the number of injections is extremely important. you only get 3-5 injections in a joint and they're toast.

[Donttellmeshowme]

There are simple things that can be done to address treatment records for horses.

- each horse should have an electronic medical record that is maintained by his veterinarian. There can be discussion about whether this should include medications and supplements. Anything that is an injectable, even if it is a vitamin shot, should be administered by the vet. The vet should be required to keep all records of injections, not the trainer, including what was injected and why. The records should be available to everyone - horses should not be covered by HIPPA - including the stewards, so they can compare medication records to post-race lab reports.

- Trainers should be required to provide a reason for why a horse has not raced in 60 days or more and it should be in the Equibase data base. Take the case of Lady Eli. Obviously we know she was off due to laminitis. But how many other horses have serious illnesses, surgery, or injury that the public is unaware of.

Most horseplayers are unaware of how horses are normally treated with supplements or medication, and this leads to speculation about drugs run rampant. It doesn't help when trainers insist that what they do needs to be kept a secret. It just gives people more reason to believe the worst.



This is too funny and your proposal will never fly.

[Donttellmeshowme]

I kind of agree with your original statement to a point. but the number of injections is extremely important. you only get 3-5 injections in a joint and they're toast.



You can get more than 5 injections if done properly.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is too funny and your proposal will never fly.
Most vets already are required to keep records, and it is just the case that the records should be make electronic.

As for trainers telling us about layoffs, what is the argument against that?

[chadk66]

You can get more than 5 injections if done properly.has nothing to do with doing it properly. It destroys the synovial fluid. Every injection just degrades it that much more. You can help some with Adequan but you might by two more injections. Injecting joints is really something you shouldn't do unless it's pretty much a last resort.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Most vets already are required to keep records, and it is just the case that the records should be make electronic.

As for trainers telling us about layoffs, what is the argument against that?





When doctors start showing medical records of there patients to every tom, dick, and harry then you might have a case. If vets start giving out records of each horse to other trainers then that vet will be out of business.

[Stillriledup]

When doctors start showing medical records of there patients to every tom, dick, and harry then you might have a case. If vets start giving out records of each horse to other trainers then that vet will be out of business.

This doesn't seem to indicate that you, as an insider, are putting the horses OR the customers first.

Unless I'm misreading what you're saying?

[Donttellmeshowme]

This doesn't seem to indicate that you, as an insider, are putting the horses OR the customers first.

Unless I'm misreading what you're saying?



What im saying is all this disclosure stuff will never pass.

[Stillriledup]

What im saying is all this disclosure stuff will never pass.

But if you want it to NOT pass, you're saying that you, the insider, come first and come ahead of the customer and horses.

[cj]

But if you want it to NOT pass, you're saying that you, the insider, come first and come ahead of the customer and horses.

Most people in any profession put themselves ahead of other people and animals. What else is new?

[Grits]

What im saying is all this disclosure stuff will never pass.

You're right. This will never fly. First, because trainers and vets will always protect themselves before all things. But, more than this, because the connections are not the owners of their horse's medical records. Unlike, you and I, we are the owners of our medical records. And when a physician treating us request our records from another physician, for whatever reason, they are bound, by law, to produce, and submit those records to the requesting physician to aid in our treatment.

It's a shame that the same cannot be required for an animal who is running for our entertainment in a sport funded by our money.

This sport continues to be shrouded in secrecy, and for this reason it will continue to decline. ... But, what do I know? Most would say, 0.

[Donttellmeshowme]

But if you want it to NOT pass, you're saying that you, the insider, come first and come ahead of the customer and horses.



Nope never said that. I said it wont pass. Doesnt mean i put myself ahead of the horse. Your putting words into ur own mouth.

[Donttellmeshowme]

You're right. This will never fly. First, because trainers and vets will always protect themselves before all things. But, more than this, because the connections are not the owners of their horse's medical records. Unlike, you and I, we are the owners of our medical records. And when a physician treating us request our records from another physician, for whatever reason, they are bound, by law, to produce, and submit those records to the requesting physician to aid in our treatment.

It's a shame that the same cannot be required for an animal who is running for our entertainment in a sport funded by our money.

This sport continues to be shrouded in secrecy, and for this reason it will continue to decline. ... But, what do I know? Most would say, 0.



So please tell me who are the owners of the horses medical records.

[Stillriledup]

Nope never said that. I said it wont pass. Doesnt mean i put myself ahead of the horse. Your putting words into ur own mouth.

If you're not in favor of this passing, you're not putting the horse first. It's ok, you don't have to put the horse first, not all of us love animals.

[Grits]

So please tell me who are the owners of the horses medical records.

You're the trainer, and one who, often, doesn't mind speaking out about all things horse related. I gave you what exists for you and I.

In a different direction, though. Let's say, your dog is seen by your small animal vet, at his practice, in your community. He does xrays, bloodwork, etc, as your dog is getting sicker by the day. Can't keep food or water down. The two of you talk, and your vet suggest his calling Auburn, or any of the other fine university vet schools. You give him the ok, to please phone them, and discuss your dog's case, telling them the symptoms and treatment of recent days. Within 24 hours, you and your dog will likely be on the way to Auburn where your dog's problems have been shared, and are ready to be further assessed. It may be cancer, or a needed surgery, or whatever. Yet, in the effort to provide what's best for this animal--there is discussion and sharing of treatment (records).

But, we can't do any of these things for horses? No records anywhere of treatments, no responsibility by anyone? Why is this? Though as I said, this ain't happening. We frown on the disclosure thing. We like secrecy.

Your call. EOC

[Donttellmeshowme]

If you're not in favor of this passing, you're not putting the horse first. It's ok, you don't have to put the horse first, not all of us love animals.




Oh ok gotcha. So all these trainers who arent in favor of this passing are not putting the horse first. i want you to tell that to some of the trainers. Go ahead and tell Ron Ellis he doesnt put the horses first.

[Donttellmeshowme]

You're the trainer, and one who, often, doesn't mind speaking out about all things horse related. I gave you what exists for you and I.

In a different direction, though. Let's say, your dog is seen by your small animal vet, at his practice, in your community. He does xrays, bloodwork, etc, as your dog is getting sicker by the day. Can't keep food or water down. The two of you talk, and your vet suggest his calling Auburn, or any of the other fine university vet schools. You give him the ok, to please phone them, and discuss your dog's case, telling them the symptoms and treatment of recent days. Within 24 hours, you and your dog will likely be on the way to Auburn where your dog's problems have been shared, and are ready to be further assessed. It may be cancer, or a needed surgery, or whatever. Yet, in the effort to provide what's best for this animal--there is discussion and sharing of treatment (records).

But, we can't do any of these things for horses? No records anywhere of treatments, no responsibility by anyone? Why is this? Though as I said, this ain't happening. We frown on the disclosure thing. We like secrecy.

Your call. EOC




Im not a trainer.

And your comparing dogs to horses. One animal is trained to run and the other one is trained to fetch a bone. If a horse has a problem all it takes is an xray and the vet will now what hes dealing. with. And im ok if the horse has an emergency situation and different vets are involved and they get together and share info. But as far as claiming a horse and sharing the info between the new trainer and old trainer, hell to the Nooooooooooo.

[eqitec]

The "when" in your "when doctors start sharing their medical records......" was actually several years ago with the advent of RHIOs (regional health information organizations". In Rochester NY, where we, among others throughout the country pioneered the concept, now includes sharing of doctors chart notes, along with more diagnostic test results, including radiology images, and treatment regimens, including all drugs administered.

Horse racing has its own "closed" version of a RHIO with its Jockey's Health Information System (JHIS), developed by the Jockey Club's IT subsidiary. Since jockeys are a highly mobile workforce, sharing their medical records between health care providers in different regions of the country is clearly in the jockeys' best interests.

With human RHIOs, the patient is considered the ultimate "owner" of their records, and they must give consent to their records being shared. The same principle should be applied to a horse's medical record, where its OWNER, not its trainers or veterinarians, would give the consents for sharing to take place. Whatever concerns owners may have about such sharing diminishing the value of their "properties" would wash out as they gained access to the records of other "properties" they might consider buying.

[eqitec]

The comments in the DRF article at the link below attributed to Gary Contessa and and others should add value to this discussion.

From Welfare & Safety of Racehorse Summit (http://www.drf.com/news/contessa-advocates-more-transparency-safety-summit)

[Grits]

The comments in the DRF article at the link below attributed to Gary Contessa and and others should add value to this discussion.

From Welfare & Safety of Racehorse Summit (http://www.drf.com/news/contessa-advocates-more-transparency-safety-summit)

Thank you, Equitec, for posting.

Here's another one that came out in 2009 about 5 years prior to Contessa and others (including Dr.Northrup) speaking out in the linked piece in 2014.

Anyone remember I Want Revenge?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/sports/06horse.html?_r=0

Northrop, who declined to comment, is the vice chairman of the American Association of Equine Practitioners’ Racing Committee, a group that has advocated taking the mystery out of what comes out of its members’ black bags. In June he wrote an essay for The Times, “Making Good Decisions to Protect Horses (http://therail.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/making-good-decisions-to-protect-horses/?scp=1&sq=%22making%20good%20decisions%22&st=cse).” Still, when IEAH’s lawyer, Andre Regard, asked, “What do you think about the fact that one of the advertised issues of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission is greater transparency and disclosure?”

“I’m all for it,” he answered.

“Do you think that a horse that’s the favorite for the Kentucky Derby deserves more transparency and disclosure of treatments?” Regard asked.

“To the owners, yes,” Northrop said.

“What about the public who is betting on it?” Regard asked.

“No,” he replied.


Regard asked him who he believed was his client — the owner or the trainer.

“The trainer,” he said.

“Do you bill the trainer?” Regard asked.

“No,” Northrop said. “Bill the owners. The trainer is the agent of the owners is my understanding of it, but with that said, I welcome all owners to communicate directly with me.”

[Tom]

When doctors start showing medical records of there patients to every tom, dick, and harry then you might have a case. If vets start giving out records of each horse to other trainers then that vet will be out of business.

But when a person changes doctors, his records are available to the new one.
Should be the same way with horses, to ensure the new vet is aware of the horse's medical history.

That funny, too?

[Stillriledup]

Oh ok gotcha. So all these trainers who arent in favor of this passing are not putting the horse first. i want you to tell that to some of the trainers. Go ahead and tell Ron Ellis he doesnt put the horses first.

Everyone is going to SAY they put the horses first, but actions speak louder than words. If you really care about animals, why wouldnt you want the new connections to have specific knowledge that you already have? If you don't want to share that knowledge don't put your horse in a claiming race.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Everyone is going to SAY they put the horses first, but actions speak louder than words. If you really care about animals, why wouldnt you want the new connections to have specific knowledge that you already have? If you don't want to share that knowledge don't put your horse in a claiming race.




Already told you why it shouldnt be done. i dont want trainers who dont have a clue on what to do now know what to do. They have a trainers license let them figure it out. Why should i help out my competition that im trying to beat? What if i help out my competition and my former horse is running against me in the same race and beats me? That would be stupid on my part to help out my competition. Does Burger King help out McDonalds? Hell to the noooooooooo they dont.


And to your comment about not putting my horse in a claiming race suggest your grasping at straws trying to prove ur point. Why would i put a claimer in an Allowance race? Why do i want to do what other stupid trainers do by running there claimers in Allowance races so they wont get there horses claimed? I dont want to be part of stupid. Im in this to make money not lose money.

[chadk66]

It really boils down to privacy and trade secrets. So I don't think anything will ever change. If I sell a horse to somebody privately I have always declared everything I know about the horse and if and what it has had done medically. In regards to claiming it's extremely rare for another trainer to give the new trainer any info. Because they usually didn't want to loose the horse. And currently it's illegal for vets to disclose any information to a third party.

[Stillriledup]

Already told you why it shouldnt be done. i dont want trainers who dont have a clue on what to do now know what to do. They have a trainers license let them figure it out. Why should i help out my competition that im trying to beat? What if i help out my competition and my former horse is running against me in the same race and beats me? That would be stupid on my part to help out my competition. Does Burger King help out McDonalds? Hell to the noooooooooo they dont.


And to your comment about not putting my horse in a claiming race suggest your grasping at straws trying to prove ur point. Why would i put a claimer in an Allowance race? Why do i want to do what other stupid trainers do hit by running there claimers in Allowance races so they wont get there horses claimed? I dont want to be part of stupid. Im in this to make money not lose money.

It's not about having a 'clue' because there's only one 'best trainer' everyone else would have someone they could learn from.

Essentially you don't care if the new acquisition gets some treatment he otherwise might not have gotten? Isn't that bad for the horse? Why not put the horse first for the good of the animals welfare as well as for the overall health of the sport by showing more disclosure? Not everyone can have you calling the shots, some people have to hire mere mortals to make decisions, not everyone can hire gods gift, if everyone is giving up the records it's a level field, if trainer A is better than trainer B he's going to outtrain him or her anyway, sharing a report isn't going to make a good trainer bad or a bad trainer good.

[Grits]

Already told you why it shouldnt be done. i dont want trainers who dont have a clue on what to do now know what to do. They have a trainers license let them figure it out. Why should i help out my competition that im trying to beat? What if i help out my competition and my former horse is running against me in the same race and beats me? That would be stupid on my part to help out my competition. Does Burger King help out McDonalds? Hell to the noooooooooo they dont.


And to your comment about not putting my horse in a claiming race suggest your grasping at straws trying to prove ur point. Why would i put a claimer in an Allowance race? Why do i want to do what other stupid trainers do by running there claimers in Allowance races so they wont get there horses claimed? I dont want to be part of stupid. Im in this to make money not lose money.

Not sure what your second use of hell to the noooooooo means. :faint:

But this is a poor comparison because Burger King and McDonald's flip burgers. Unlike claiming trainers, they don't flip horses.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Not sure what your second use of hell to the noooooooo means. :faint:

But this is a poor comparison because Burger King and McDonald's flip burgers. Unlike claiming trainers, they don't flip horses.



My point was Burger Kind doesnt help there competition,. McDonalds is there competition. Im not into helping other trainers which are my competition. Not today not tomorrow not ever. Now if i sell a horse privately then yes i will disclose everything there is to know about the horse. But in the claiming game that wont happen.

[Donttellmeshowme]

It's not about having a 'clue' because there's only one 'best trainer' everyone else would have someone they could learn from.

Essentially you don't care if the new acquisition gets some treatment he otherwise might not have gotten? Isn't that bad for the horse? Why not put the horse first for the good of the animals welfare as well as for the overall health of the sport by showing more disclosure? Not everyone can have you calling the shots, some people have to hire mere mortals to make decisions, not everyone can hire gods gift, if everyone is giving up the records it's a level field, if trainer A is better than trainer B he's going to outtrain him or her anyway, sharing a report isn't going to make a good trainer bad or a bad trainer good.




Incorrect 10000%%%% Sharing a report will make a bad trainer look good because now he has the trick as to what the other trainer was doing with its horse.

And no its not bad for the horse if he doesnt get the same treatment. You are always trying to make the situation so negative. You act like if the horse doesnt get the same treatment you are going to find the horse dead in its stall.

[Stillriledup]

Incorrect 10000%%%% Sharing a report will make a bad trainer look good because now he has the trick as to what the other trainer was doing with its horse.

And no its not bad for the horse if he doesnt get the same treatment. You are always trying to make the situation so negative. You act like if the horse doesnt get the same treatment you are going to find the horse dead in its stall.

Bad trainers are bad for a reason, they're never going to look good.

[Ruffian1]

For what it's worth:

When I lost a horse and there was ANYTHING, emphasized because it could be a thousand different things, traits or idiosyncrasies that the horse really did not like, I always made it a point to get the message to the new trainer that you cannot do blank or don't try and do this or that with the horse or whatever, that might put the horse, groom, rider, or anyone in jeopardy. The warning always came with an explanation as to why so there was no doubt. Without that, some trainers might tell you something not to do when it is exactly what the horse wants you to do.

Plenty of other trainers I know and knew did practice the same courtesy then and still do today. Most trainers have a healthy respect for the horse, the game and all concerned when it comes to safety. Some though, like any business, are just low life's that has no regard for anyone or anything.

Probably real hard for some skeptics to believe that but I sleep real well years later knowing I did that. Always !

But just because you do that doesn't mean the trainer will listen to you. Especially if he thinks he is superior.

I warned a trainer decades ago when he claimed a horse off of me as to something NOT to do or be very careful of. He did it anyway and cost his best horse, a Derby and Preakness winner to say nothing of a great horse, a shot at a Marboro Cup , as well as ending the horses racing career.

So just because you tell some people doesn't mean they will listen.

[Donttellmeshowme]

For what it's worth:

When I lost a horse and there was ANYTHING, emphasized because it could be a thousand different things, traits or idiosyncrasies that the horse really did not like, I always made it a point to get the message to the new trainer that you cannot do blank or don't try and do this or that with the horse or whatever, that might put the horse, groom, rider, or anyone in jeopardy. The warning always came with an explanation as to why so there was no doubt. Without that, some trainers might tell you something not to do when it is exactly what the horse wants you to do.

Plenty of other trainers I know and knew did practice the same courtesy then and still do today. Most trainers have a healthy respect for the horse, the game and all concerned when it comes to safety. Some though, like any business, are just low life's that has no regard for anyone or anything.

Probably real hard for some skeptics to believe that but I sleep real well years later knowing I did that. Always !

But just because you do that doesn't mean the trainer will listen to you. Especially if he thinks he is superior.

I warned a trainer decades ago when he claimed a horse off of me as to something NOT to do or be very careful of. He did it anyway and cost his best horse, a Derby and Preakness winner to say nothing of a great horse, a shot at a Marboro Cup , as well as ending the horses racing career.

So just because you tell some people doesn't mean they will listen.




Post of the Year.....

[Grits]

I was hoping you'd speak up, Ruffian. I'm glad you did; I always respect your voice in matters concerning trainers. It's a shame that the sport lost one of the good guys. :)

[ultracapper]

For what it's worth:

When I lost a horse and there was ANYTHING, emphasized because it could be a thousand different things, traits or idiosyncrasies that the horse really did not like, I always made it a point to get the message to the new trainer that you cannot do blank or don't try and do this or that with the horse or whatever, that might put the horse, groom, rider, or anyone in jeopardy. The warning always came with an explanation as to why so there was no doubt. Without that, some trainers might tell you something not to do when it is exactly what the horse wants you to do.

Plenty of other trainers I know and knew did practice the same courtesy then and still do today. Most trainers have a healthy respect for the horse, the game and all concerned when it comes to safety. Some though, like any business, are just low life's that has no regard for anyone or anything.

Probably real hard for some skeptics to believe that but I sleep real well years later knowing I did that. Always !

But just because you do that doesn't mean the trainer will listen to you. Especially if he thinks he is superior.

I warned a trainer decades ago when he claimed a horse off of me as to something NOT to do or be very careful of. He did it anyway and cost his best horse, a Derby and Preakness winner to say nothing of a great horse, a shot at a Marboro Cup , as well as ending the horses racing career.

So just because you tell some people doesn't mean they will listen.

So it wasn't even the horse he claimed off you that he damaged, it was another horse he had under his care, a damn good one at that, that was harmed irreparably by the horse he claimed from you?

Wow!!! Hopefully lesson learned.

[Ruffian1]

I was hoping you'd speak up, Ruffian. I'm glad you did; I always respect your voice in matters concerning trainers. It's a shame that the sport lost one of the good guys. :)

Thank you Grits !

[Ruffian1]

So it wasn't even the horse he claimed off you that he damaged, it was another horse he had under his care, a damn good one at that, that was harmed irreparably by the horse he claimed from you?

Wow!!! Hopefully lesson learned.


Unfortunately, yes.

[VeryOldMan]

Unfortunately, yes.
Great stuff, Ruffian1. I think I can "name that tune" re the trainer and the exceptional horse.

More broadly: if the industry moved to a model of complete disclosure of medical records, I'm having trouble seeing that as bad in the long run.