Mandatory Medication Logs

[Indulto]

http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/08/14/sports/horseracing/doc4a84f3c78de29005775071.txt (http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/08/14/sports/horseracing/doc4a84f3c78de29005775071.txt)
The times are changing
By Nick Kling August 14, 2009… if the idea went into effect, owners and trainers in New York would be required to produce medication records “when requested by an official of the (SRWB)” for most racehorses.

Detailed records would be needed, including medication, dosage, time, date, method and place of administration, and the person giving the medication. Veterinarians would be responsible for providing such information to the owner and trainer so the records would be on hand for inspection.

The proposed idea would apply to any horse stabled on the grounds of a licensed New York racetrack, or one which had been entered to race within the last 60 days. It would cover a minimum of the previous 45 days.

… The trainer whose horse wins a race, then is found days or weeks later to have had a medication positive, may be subjected to a fine or suspension. But there is no recourse for the people who lost their money on the tainted race. Once pari-mutuel payouts are made, it’s over.

… The proposed SRWB rule would not eliminate cheaters. What it would do is require horseman to use the same professionalism already practiced by farmers. I’d be willing to bet some trainers already have this type of record keeping system.

The result would be fewer races with accidental positives for which the bettor receives no refund. A requirement for accurate records would force trainers and owners to do a better job of managing their horses. Any trainer who doesn’t know exactly when, where, and what, his horse was administered by a vet, should not be licensed in New York, or any other racing venue. There is no excuse for ignorance.

Horse racing has traditionally been a club which rewarded insiders and stiffed the patrons who provided revenue for purse money. That has to change. The SRWB idea would be a step in the direction of integrity.I would like to see the vet's reason for each administering of a medication. Also, there should be a daily log for each vet submitted to the track with the same information; both for cross reference and to track the results of various medications.

[andymays]

http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/08/14/sports/horseracing/doc4a84f3c78de29005775071.txt (http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/08/14/sports/horseracing/doc4a84f3c78de29005775071.txt)
The times are changing
By Nick Kling August 14, 2009I would like to see the vet's reason for each administering of a medication. Also, there should be a daily log for each vet submitted to the track with the same information; both for cross reference and to track the results of various medications.


This is one of those things that sounds good but how would it work in the real world on the backstretch?

I'm sure someone on the Board familiar with the day to day action on the backstretch could tell us how practical this would be. Maybe they could list some of the circumstances where this system might not work too well! What could be some of the unintended consequences?

Who would determine who's responsible for Vet records getting mixed up if a Trainer has to use more than one Vet in an emergency or in a shipping situation?

[bisket]

i read about this last week, and of all the changes thats been proposed or made, imop, this would work best of all to deter cheating.

[joanied]

This has me thinking that the vets don't already keep records...it would surprise me if they didn't...if for no other reason, but to protect themselves...
but, who knows how the vets deal with their 'paperwork'...it does seem a simple solution for, at the very least, having up to date, complete records on every horse...and these medical records would be required to go with a horse if it changes hands.

andymays... maybe I can make a suggestion as to the 'how'...since I worked Belmont's backside and also on a breeding farm (Ocala)...on the farm we had broodmares/foals/stallions/yearlings/layups...the whole nine yards...

all trainers would have to do is put a chart next to every stall for every horse...name, age, sex, color, Reg. number...on the track the chart could be put on the door to the groom's wall box (I assume grooms still use a wall box for all their stuff)...the chart would detail every vet visit with every medication administered and why it was given...dates, times...everything.


IMO, with a chart for every horse...it'd be pretty easy to follow that horses medications and health problems.
Kind of a no brainer ;)
To make this system complete, every month the trainer would then enter all this data into his computer.(or have someone do it for him)

OH...and any trainer/owner that says putting a horse's medication chart on the wall for daily entries isn't a good idea, maybe they don't want anyone to see it...is already cheating and afraid to show a particular horses medication regeme (how do ya spell that:) )

My 2 cents

[Indulto]

This has me thinking that the vets don't already keep records...it would surprise me if they didn't...if for no other reason, but to protect themselves...
but, who knows how the vets deal with their 'paperwork'...it does seem a simple solution for, at the very least, having up to date, complete records on every horse...and these medical records would be required to go with a horse if it changes hands.How would that impact the claiming game?andymays... maybe I can make a suggestion as to the 'how'...since I worked Belmont's backside and also on a breeding farm (Ocala)...on the farm we had broodmares/foals/stallions/yearlings/layups...the whole nine yards...

all trainers would have to do is put a chart next to every stall for every horse...name, age, sex, color, Reg. number...on the track the chart could be put on the door to the groom's wall box (I assume grooms still use a wall box for all their stuff)...the chart would detail every vet visit with every medication administered and why it was given...dates, times...everything.I'm glad you agreed with the "why."IMO, with a chart for every horse...it'd be pretty easy to follow that horses medications and health problems.
Kind of a no brainer ;)
To make this system complete, every month the trainer would then enter all this data into his computer.(or have someone do it for him)

OH...and any trainer/owner that says putting a horse's medication chart on the wall for daily entries isn't a good idea, maybe they don't want anyone to see it...is already cheating and afraid to show a particular horses medication regeme (how do ya spell that:) )

My 2 centsIt will only work if the information is accurate, of course. The trainer log is critical as is vet accountability. Errors are always possible, but continued errors by a vet is too much of a coincidence.

[joanied]

How would that impact the claiming game? I'm glad you agreed with the "why."It will only work if the information is accurate, of course. The trainer log is critical as is vet accountability. Errors are always possible, but continued errors by a vet is too much of a coincidence.


If you mean the fact the the claimers are always being moved here & there...IMO...shouldn't be a problem...they have to move the horse's registration papers, so his medical chart would go along too... meantime, every trainer that has had a particular horse in his barn would have already entered the medical chart information into his computer that was compiled during his time with the horse.
Eventually the idea would also include entering all chart information that's on a trainers computer on a horse to a central data base, probably via the Jockey Club, or if available (and it should be) a central data base created just for medical records.

Yes...the WHY is extremely important...as every trainer/vet best have a good reason for administering any medication/treatment.

Accuracy...that's the hardest part...you would have to be confident that ALL info entered is complete and the TRUTH...which means ya gotta TRUST the people involved...not an easy thing to do since we already have quite a bit of dis trust in the vets and a lot of trainers...
but, it can work...IMHO.

[11cashcall]

JB has it right when he said freeze the blood samples.

[Java Gold@TFT]

No offense intended to those that think this is a great thing for racing but please look at the facts. Nationally no two states can agree on medication standards. This standard for NY requires medication documentation for every horse enterred in the last 60 days. So, a trainer with a barn of 5 horses at Suffolk may think about sending a horse to Saratoga to get his owner very happy. In the 45-60 days before the race in NY he has to be able to produce all of his medical records in Mass.. Same with the shippers from evrywhere else - Va, NJ, PA, Del, Ill, Ky, Cal, etc. What's NY going to do? Deny the shippers into the entry box if they can't produce medical records the way they want? All I read in the statement was that horses enterred in a race within 60 days had to be able to produce these records. So , kill the shippers because they don't have to do the exact sme thing in their state. At least that's the way I have read the articles so far.

Of course this has nothing to do with stopping cheaters. Exactly which vet is going to the chart and writing down that he injected Cobra venom in a horse? When Jeff Mullins visits a horse in the detention barn to administer a little pre-race "lovin'" and then wallks away without being caught, does he write it on his chart or conveniently "forget" while his vet isn't around?

Lastly, how many people would NYRA have to hire to monitor this database of drug use? And the worst part of all is that this supposed proposal would be administered by the NYS Racing and Wagering Board. It's a political entity where none of the members has a clue.

It sounds all warm and fuzzy like polytracks did years ago but it's completely impractible. JMO.

[joanied]

javagold........:faint: aarrgghhh...you just ruined my day by being so damned correct...it's a very difficult situation and there are no easy answers...you shed some 'dark' light on this subject, and have me scratching my head...so, forgetting this 'idea' for now...I have to assume that the first thing 'we' have to do about medications is to get the powers that rule to agree that thre HAS to be uniform drug rules...exactly the same rules in every state...which is what I've always beleived HAS to be the first step in controling the situation...it would seem that it's as plain as the nose on a face, that drug rules must be exactly the same in every state...do you think that will happen?
I also beleive the threshold must be brought up to the point where simple contamination is not a factor...will they do that?
Now, I am far, far, far from knowing everything about this medication mess...so guess there ain't nothin' more I can add...at least right now.
Thanks for your post...it's an eye opener!!

[Java Gold@TFT]

Didn't mean to upset your day JoinieD. It's just that after following this game for 35+ years as a fan and occasional owner I have just gotten jaded by some of the warm and fuzzy ideas that get floated and people just jump on them. Until racing gets some sort of real national ruling body then nothing will happen. I just can't see the racing commision in Iowa looking at this and saying to themselves - "We have to do the same thing or our horses at Prairie Meadows won't be eligible to race at Saratoga next month." There are just way too many vague subtelties the way things are worded from what I have read so far. Just enjoy the races and the horse we have. The national medication problem is not going away any sooner than synthetics or slot machines.

[CryingForTheHorses]

This is one of those things that sounds good but how would it work in the real world on the backstretch?

I'm sure someone on the Board familiar with the day to day action on the backstretch could tell us how practical this would be. Maybe they could list some of the circumstances where this system might not work too well! What could be some of the unintended consequences?

Who would determine who's responsible for Vet records getting mixed up if a Trainer has to use more than one Vet in an emergency or in a shipping situation?


A trainer should keep a record of what horse gets what each day..My vet reads my book writes down the stall number and the horses name and adminsters whatever when I am there..That way there is no screwups,If I cant be there or I am busy with another horse,My wife will be present with the vet.Sloppy med books make for mistakes.Vet records getting mixed up is only the fault of one guy...The trainer!

[Indulto]

No offense intended to those that think this is a great thing for racing but please look at the facts. Nationally no two states can agree on medication standards. This standard for NY requires medication documentation for every horse enterred in the last 60 days. So, a trainer with a barn of 5 horses at Suffolk may think about sending a horse to Saratoga to get his owner very happy. In the 45-60 days before the race in NY he has to be able to produce all of his medical records in Mass.. Same with the shippers from evrywhere else - Va, NJ, PA, Del, Ill, Ky, Cal, etc. What's NY going to do? Deny the shippers into the entry box if they can't produce medical records the way they want? All I read in the statement was that horses enterred in a race within 60 days had to be able to produce these records. So , kill the shippers because they don't have to do the exact sme thing in their state. At least that's the way I have read the articles so far.

Of course this has nothing to do with stopping cheaters. Exactly which vet is going to the chart and writing down that he injected Cobra venom in a horse? When Jeff Mullins visits a horse in the detention barn to administer a little pre-race "lovin'" and then wallks away without being caught, does he write it on his chart or conveniently "forget" while his vet isn't around?

Lastly, how many people would NYRA have to hire to monitor this database of drug use? And the worst part of all is that this supposed proposal would be administered by the NYS Racing and Wagering Board. It's a political entity where none of the members has a clue.

It sounds all warm and fuzzy like polytracks did years ago but it's completely impractible. JMO.Interesting perspective, JG, but NY already discourages shippers with its detention barn. Just ask Zenyatta’s owner.

While I share your contempt for the NYSWRB, I value Nick Kling’s support for the concept. With some careful systems analysis, this is entirely doable.

If only vets can administer medication, then no trainers should have syringes or injectable materials in their possession. Prior to rounds, pre-printed daiiy triplicate vet visit receipt pads with checkoff boxes for the most common situations (and blanks for the unplanned) could be generated to provide data entry source documents for Equibase/The Jockey Club. A hand-held UPS-like delivery receipt computer might be even better.

A single individual might be required to track injuries, days between starts, and wins following medication administration across vets as well as to spot-check vets by randomly accompanying then on rounds. Initially, each vet would have to be accompanied on his/her rounds for some specified period.

Does anybody know the total number of vets allowed on the grounds by NYRA and how many trainers?

[Java Gold@TFT]

Interesting perspective, JG, but NY already discourages shippers with its detention barn. Just ask Zenyatta’s owner.

While I share your contempt for the NYSWRB, I value Nick Kling’s support for the concept. With some careful systems analysis, this is entirely doable.

If only vets can administer medication, then no trainers should have syringes or injectable materials in their possession. Prior to rounds, pre-printed daiiy triplicate vet visit receipt pads with checkoff boxes for the most common situations (and blanks for the unplanned) could be generated to provide data entry source documents for Equibase/The Jockey Club. A hand-held UPS-like delivery receipt computer might be even better.

A single individual might be required to track injuries, days between starts, and wins following medication administration across vets as well as to spot-check vets by randomly accompanying then on rounds. Initially, each vet would have to be accompanied on his/her rounds for some specified period.

Does anybody know the total number of vets allowed on the grounds by NYRA and how many trainers?
I like Nick Kling and respect his opinions. I read his columns and watch him every Sunday morning. The idea and the way you present the tracking are all well and good. I would like to see it happen. I just question how extensive the extra costs will be to monitor this. Then, being here near Saratoga, evrey race has shippers. They have no problems with detention barns ;) Only 'some' potential shippers have problems with them. (Doesn't the BC still have detention barns no matter where it is run?) So, the guys from Suffolk have to implement the same system if they want to sneak into Saratoga and take a chance in a $20K claiming race.

Also, the NYSRWB is a political entity and very dysfunctional. I assume this isn't just aimed at NYRA but every race track under their jurisdiction so Finger Lakes and the harness tracks would all be included. I don't know what the costs would be for the smaller tracks to implement some type of centralized medication tracking. I'm really just trying to look at it from the practical standpoint of implementing this proposed system. With the horses I have been involved with the trainers could always produce the detailed vet bills on the horse so I know there already is a good deal of accountability. Then again they were all fairly high profile NYRA trainers. I put this up there with the national database for breakdowns. It's just not well defined. For instance, if a 2yo is working toward its first start and develops a soft tissue injury that forces it back to the farm for the winter, then goes back to working at age 3 and develops another injury (or inflames the old one), then the owners decide it's best just not to race the horse so it is retired without a start. Does that horse go into the injury database for the track where it first developed the injury? It's just too vague right now. JMO.

[Grits]

Excerpt from Kling's column:


Well, you say, that’s alright for a stationary field, but what about a live animal? Simple. Many top dairy farmers in America keep the same records the SRWB is proposing horse trainers should have available.

The complete absurdity of the so-called “nightmare” to trainers is clear when you consider this. The average dairy farm has far more cattle than the average Thoroughbred or Standardbred trainer. Farmers work similar, if not longer hours, than trainers. They have the same problems with employees, veterinarians, etc., as do horse trainers.

Let’s talk about the trainer responsibility rule. It says the trainer is the ultimate person who gets penalized when a horse is found with a medication infraction. Fines and/or suspensions can be levied.

Think that’s harsh? Then think about what a dairy farmer faces if he or she makes an error.

Suppose a farmer ships milk worth $1,000 to the processor on a tanker truck holding milk from other farms. The total value of the whole load is $10,000. Further suppose the first farmer’s milk is found to be contaminated by an antibiotic positive.

The guilty farmer faces more than the loss of his or her milk. He or she is responsible for the entire $10,000. In addition, the farmer may be banned by the milk processor if there have been more than one or two similar incidents. That is why the farmer keeps accurate records.



Java, if its alright, let me create some balance for the sake of the opinion and "time spent" credential. For all those 30 years you have been owning and in the game, JoanieD was in the stalls with 'em every morning and afternoon--rubbing, wrapping and working on 'em. She passed "warm and fuzzy" a good number of years back.

There are problems aplenty in racing, but I don't deem racing jurisdictions dysfunctional, most especially when they are aware of, and are attempting to work on, concerns that continue raising questions for those who participate--be it trainer, owner, bettor or fan. They have different rules in every one of them, but no--not total dysfunction.

Nick Kling's anecdotal comparison of the farming industry is an excellent one, a vast log of records kept, in place for the protection of the consumer.

. . . . Why should NYSRWB's concept/plan be thought of as born out of dysfunction, a paper nightmare that should be viewed as far fetched, a burden for trainers, owners, and veterinarians?

There has to be a starting point--or sooner or later, there may be NO point.

I started a thread several days ago (sorry Indulto) when the Bloodhorse reported this on August 7th. Here's the link.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...ete-vet-records (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52024/ny-may-demand-horses-complete-vet-records)

[Java Gold@TFT]

Grits, I said that I think it could be done and is a good idea. The dysfunctional comment was aimed at the NYSRWB. If you had followed them for the last 10-15 years as I have then you might also think they were a dysfuncional political entity. To say that "I don't deem racing jurisdictions dysfunctional" is basically looking at things that are done outside of state politics. NYRA is not responsible for this proposal, the NYSWRB is. No two racing jurisdictions in the country can agree on anything. Cal has mandatory synthetics, Texas wants Asmussed suspended for 6 months because they have a zero tolerance policy on certain meds that are allowed in other states, jockeys suspended in England for race fixing are allowed to race at PA tracks, Mullin and Dutrow can pick when they serve their suspensions, and the list goes on. When Texas gets done in court will every of the jurisdictions keep Asmussen off the grounds and take away his cell phone? I'm skeptical but I tend to doubt it.

The point is - If all of the staes can't agree on simple things then why should other states follow NY's lead in this situation. California mandated synthetic tracks and just how many followed behind? I don't see this "rule" being any different.

[Grits]

I'm fully aware this isn't a NYRA ruling Java, as I'm sure everyone else here is. And aware as well, its common knowledge the varying differences in rules nationwide are problematic, to say the least. I still maintain this is not beyond the best interest of ALL who participate, as Kling clearly indicated.

[joanied]

Didn't mean to upset your day JoinieD. It's just that after following this game for 35+ years as a fan and occasional owner I have just gotten jaded by some of the warm and fuzzy ideas that get floated and people just jump on them. Until racing gets some sort of real national ruling body then nothing will happen. I just can't see the racing commision in Iowa looking at this and saying to themselves - "We have to do the same thing or our horses at Prairie Meadows won't be eligible to race at Saratoga next month." There are just way too many vague subtelties the way things are worded from what I have read so far. Just enjoy the races and the horse we have. The national medication problem is not going away any sooner than synthetics or slot machines.

Oh, you didn't...just joking 'bout that:) ...what ruins my day is all the troubles within the industry...
it's a shame you have become so jaded, JavaG...and no doubt, countless others are too...none of these medication problems will go away soon...not until they decide to create a central system...nation wide...and you know, sometimes things become more complicated than they need be.
Just think of how simple an idea of a nationwide set of rules can be...as for the ease to which this can be done...all 'they' need to do is set it up...same rules for everyone in every state...I just don't see where that's so damned complicated!
Everyone here has thrown in with some great 'feedback', opinions, suggestions, ideas...it's a shame the guys running this crap shoot can't see past their own selfish objectives...
I don't know what the answers are, and as much said I also don't have a great knowledge of the technical aspects to all this...but, I still say it ain't that difficult to have every state follow the same rules, the same thresholds for every drug and the same penalties for anyone breaking those rules...
guess you can call me un realistic, if that is your point of view...but warm & fuzzy might be a stretch...I was 'in the trenches' for many years...working my ass off doing something I absolutley loved...I am not a casual 'warm & fuzzy' fan...I've been there, done that... and for the past 10+ years, have been watching it all fall apart...no, not warm & fuzzy...frustrated, sometimes angry, most often sad that the people running this sport have become so totally self serving it makes me sick.

But...I love racing, love the horses, love the very essence of what horse racing is all about...I'll continue to revel in delight when I see a horse like Rachel, or a great race like the Curlin/Rags Belmont, I'll cheer & yell until my voice is lost, I'll shed tears when seeing greatness, I'll continue to follow this road that began for me over 40 years ago... to what ever end.
I'll toss out your warm & fuzzy and call it what it is...absolute passion.
:) :) :)

[Java Gold@TFT]

JoinieD, I never meant to imply that you were part of the warm and fuzzy solutions to racing problems. I am not completely jaded. I watch the races evry day and go to the track when I can, I won't ever give it up no matter the industry problems. Not to be redundant but over the years I have just seen all of the arguements for what could be good ideas - The Breedrs Cup world Championship (which has turned out to be anything less than that goal), the synthetics, the slot salvation, and even going back to the original Arlington Million - put up $1M and get the best horses from Europe to come to the states in August. Nice idea but over time it has lost some of its luster. I don't think any one of them was a bad idea it's just in the long run they haven't al worked out.

As far as the original subject of medication charting - my belief that individual states will never get together still stands. It took the revealtion that Big Brown got steroids every month in order to bring that up to the national scene and get steroids banned. A few lidocaine or cobra venom bans have not been succesful in doing the same thing. I will never leave the game because of this. I have just seen for way too long that it takes a lot to change some of the mindsets in place.

And, I congratulate you on your previuos work and continued deication to these fine horses. I truly wish that a lot more people who go into OTB parlors or sit at home betting without ever actually seeing a real horse in person would feel the same.

My best to you.

[Indulto]

... There are problems aplenty in racing, but I don't deem racing jurisdictions dysfunctional, most especially when they are aware of, and are attempting to work on, concerns that continue raising questions for those who participate--be it trainer, owner, bettor or fan. They have different rules in every one of them, but no--not total dysfunction.

Nick Kling's anecdotal comparison of the farming industry is an excellent one, a vast log of records kept, in place for the protection of the consumer.

. . . . Why should NYSRWB's concept/plan be thought of as born out of dysfunction, a paper nightmare that should be viewed as far fetched, a burden for trainers, owners, and veterinarians?

There has to be a starting point--or sooner or later, there may be NO point.

I started a thread several days ago (sorry Indulto) when the Bloodhorse reported this on August 7th. Here's the link.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...ete-vet-records
I'm the one that should apologize, Grits. I don't have time to read all the threads here any more, but I would have read one started by you if I'd seen it. Here's a link to it for others that might also have missed it:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=730294#post730294

As some pointed out there, the vets are already recording the information, so this is just a matter of increasing transparency. From that thread:
What does that matter?

If a trainer is personally giving something that obviously doesn't test, why/how would it show up on the new list?I agree, ITP, but if a trainer is using something like that regularly, monitoring such a data base might detect such winning patterns. Isn't that what the TV show "Numbers" is all about? ;)

[Grits]

Indulto, darlin,' don't be concerned about such. Absolutely no apology needed here.

Like Java notes, one sees so much over the years. Often, its a matter of squaring back to the realization . . . how much does one TRULY love this game and the horses that provide it? If that is at the base of your love of the game, in all liklihood, one may possibly last longer. I figure that's a good thing.

But, then too, for me this is "walk around money." Its not my living. If it were, and I understand those for whom it is, I'd probably get more angry than I do.

Right now, matter of fact, Saratoga's cards of yesterday and today, ain't exactly stellar quality. I feel like I'm in maiden hell. LOLOLLLLLLLLLLL

[joanied]

JoinieD, I never meant to imply that you were part of the warm and fuzzy solutions to racing problems. I am not completely jaded. I watch the races evry day and go to the track when I can, I won't ever give it up no matter the industry problems. Not to be redundant but over the years I have just seen all of the arguements for what could be good ideas - The Breedrs Cup world Championship (which has turned out to be anything less than that goal), the synthetics, the slot salvation, and even going back to the original Arlington Million - put up $1M and get the best horses from Europe to come to the states in August. Nice idea but over time it has lost some of its luster. I don't think any one of them was a bad idea it's just in the long run they haven't al worked out.

As far as the original subject of medication charting - my belief that individual states will never get together still stands. It took the revealtion that Big Brown got steroids every month in order to bring that up to the national scene and get steroids banned. A few lidocaine or cobra venom bans have not been succesful in doing the same thing. I will never leave the game because of this. I have just seen for way too long that it takes a lot to change some of the mindsets in place.

And, I congratulate you on your previuos work and continued deication to these fine horses. I truly wish that a lot more people who go into OTB parlors or sit at home betting without ever actually seeing a real horse in person would feel the same.

My best to you.

No problem, java... I can see where you are coming from, and in all reality, you may be right that the states will never agree to agree...on medication rules...it drives me insane that there is a fairly simple fix for all this 'in fighting' among the states and within all the various groups (trying) to run the industry...creating ONE 'governing' body for the entire industry...with the same rules & regulations for all...but, the ruling 'parties' have so much self interest to serve, they are willing to allow TB racing to deteriate slowly but surely.

I agree, they have royally screwed up some of very best races...especially the BC...and whoever thought up the win & your in should be shot at dawn...ah,well...there is so much wrong...but the one thing they can't screw up is the incredible rush, the beauty, the excitment, the emotional highs, the thrill...of watching a horse race in person... or the serene quiet, the hush, the soft nickers from stalls, the smell of good hay and leather, the pale light dancing as the sun comes up on another morning on the backside...

as someone once said, java..."Hope springs eternal'...even in horse racing:)