Adjunct

[Tom]

What is the deal with this stuff? It is something in addition to lasix?
How do you tell if a horse is using it today?
I heard some guy talking about it on Byk today and it sounded like it really impacted the BC results.

He claimed Drosslemyer ran on it, but I don't see anything about it anywhere. Steve alluded to a list, but I can't find it.

I do see in the EB PPs, that Dross has a "aL" for his medication, but elsewhere, adjunct is described as being and "A", like LA.

[therussmeister]

In the DRF entries it is listed as LA. All horses in the classic except So You Think raced with Adjunct.

[Tom]

I see in the EB PPS, Stephanie's Kitten ran with it, but in DRF - no mention of it.

They only put it in the entries, not the PPs??? That is pretty stupid. But I guess that is also par for DRF.

Thanks

[PhantomOnTour]

Lasix Adjunct is basically a different bleeder med(s) in addition to lasix.
It is used because some horses will bleed through lasix.

EDIT: i am sure it's not that simple...i will defer to those with more knowledge of this

[bigmack]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/HorseRacing-pre-racebleedermedicationtranexamicacidkentuckyred.png

An advisory panel to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has approved a recommendation to prohibit the race-day use of adjunct bleeder medications in the state.

By a vote of 5-2, the Kentucky Equine Drug Research Council Aug. 19 agreed to include an adjunct bleeder medication ban in its final medication recommendations that will be sent to the full racing commission later. The EDRC is meeting on a regular basis as part of a process of reviewing and revising the state’s medication rules.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/64680/adjunct-bleeder-medication-ban-advanced-in-ky

[PhantomOnTour]

Kentucky Red?
Gotta be kidding me...sounds like some name for heroine or that supersonic weed the young kids have these days. :eek:

[Tom]

Well, if they can't be bothered to report it, they should ban it.
This game never ceases to amaze me, at how minor league it really is.
No wonder so many writers can't to write to write bad stuff about it - we deserve it.:ThmbDown:

[Steve 'StatMan']

I'm used to seeing the A for adjunct in the entries, usually along with L for the Lasix, but the A never appears in the PPS. In some states where Bute is legal but the amount of dose isn't regulated, like KY, WV & PA for example, the B for Bute may also appear in the entires or at least on the track overnight, but doesn't appear in the PPS.

Yes, that means you can't be certain if a horse ran with Adjunct Meds, Or Bute by looking at the meds line in the PPS. Sadly, given the high percentage I see when looking at the entries, one might be better, when viewing PPS with past races in these and similar states, to assume they DID run with adjucts, bute, etc, whatever is legal in those states. You'd be right far more often than not. How much it matters when the run without it in a state that bans or restricts the use of those meds, sadly, I do not know with any certainty.

[Elliott Sidewater]

Uh, not that I ever used it, but you must be thinking of Panama red:):)

[DJofSD]

Add + junk -> adjunct.

[InsideTheRaces.com]

For most States.
The use of lasix and adjunct medication must be specified at the time of entry. The vet who gives the medication must present a form to the racing commission of medications given usually 1 hour before the race. The official program must list these medications. The question is whats an official program. Is it the track program or all PPs? In some states you can take a horse off lasix and adjunct medication after the entry has been made by notifying the stewards or racing commission each state has different time lines. But the official program could have already been printed with the wrong info. The race caller should announce the change. The other issue is do they really test these horses to make sure they got the medication that is listed. On the flip side are they testing horses that did not report legal adjunct at entry time but did receive it. I don't know if these adjunct meds help performance or if their performance enhancing ability has ever been measured if measurement is even possible.

[BillW]

Well, if they can't be bothered to report it, they should ban it.
This game never ceases to amaze me, at how minor league it really is.
No wonder so many writers can't to write to write bad stuff about it - we deserve it.:ThmbDown:

Tom,

It's listed in the form in bold font "L" for Lasix and "LA" for Lasix adjunct added.

[Tom]

Tom,

It's listed in the form in bold font "L" for Lasix and "LA" for Lasix adjunct added.

Not in my DRF PDFs for BC days....only L was listed. I checked EB against it - they had LA for Stephanie's Kitten, DRF had L.

[lamboguy]

the whole thing gets confusing. in the breeders cup i know that GOLDEN MYSTERY bled, i don't know if it has anything to do with the medication rules that are different in kentucky than anywhere else.

if racing is going to allow medication, they need to have uniform drug rules, and monitor changes in medication more thoroughly and make everything public so the most important component of the game, the bettor, has the right information to make the proper decisions prior to placing his or hers bets.

[Robert Fischer]

the whole thing gets confusing. in the breeders cup i know that GOLDEN MYSTERY bled, i don't know if it has anything to do with the medication rules that are different in kentucky than anywhere else.

if racing is going to allow medication, they need to have uniform drug rules, and monitor changes in medication more thoroughly and make everything public so the most important component of the game, the bettor, has the right information to make the proper decisions prior to placing his or hers bets.

thanks for the info on Golden Mystery.

Yes, the rules need to be uniform. :ThmbUp:

[PhantomOnTour]

What's ironic to me is that different states only have uniformity when a trainer or jock gets suspended.
They can't agree on what drugs to allow and disallow, but they agree to uphold another state's suspension.
Establishing a uniform national drug policy is something that could be done quickly if they wanted to.

[Tom]

I went back and listened to the gu again - he claimed that 16 of 22 races at CD those two days were won by horses on adjunct, and 10 of those were adjunct first time or returning to it after not using it recently.

I could not find that info anywhere, but certainly caught my attention.

[DJofSD]

Not good. Not good at all.

Why do I have the feeling the wool has been pulled over my eyes yet again and the owner/trainers/race organizers are laughing at me behind my back?

[Tom]

Ya think?

[DJofSD]

Ya, (in a dejected, somber tone of voice) I think so.

Where's the freedom of information act for the bettor?

[RonTiller]

I went back and listened to the gu again - he claimed that 16 of 22 races at CD those two days were won by horses on adjunct, and 10 of those were adjunct first time or returning to it after not using it recently.
16 of 22 winners on the 2 BC days listed with Adjunct Bleeder Meds is correct: 73% of winners. Also note that 153 of 232 total horses who ran were listed with Adjunct Bleeder Meds: 66%. The Win% was a little higher than the % who used it.

Just the Grade 1 races those days:

82/125 starters listed as A = 66% used
6/11 winners listed as A = 55% used

I checked the entire month of September for Charlestown:

1201/1443 starters listed as A = 83%
153/173 winners listed as A = 88%

That is consistent with the 2 BC days.

Interestingly, 96% of all the September CT runners were listed with Lasix
100% of winners were listed with Lasix

Ron Tiller
HDW

[DJofSD]

Ron, thanks for the details.

Does the PP info from your company include the "A" or adjunct designation, as a data item separate and distinct from LASIX ("L")?

[Little Watermelon]

I heard the conversation by Byk's caller on Friday. Adjunct, listed as LA, is not indicated either in the DRF PP's or Brisnet. I had heard it was shown in the programs, so I bought one of the BC programs for 2 bucks but it was not listed in there either. I saw 2 horse listed on the crawler on the simulcast feed as running with adjunct, one was the Angel Penna horse running in the F & M turf.

I asked Steve Crist after a seminar at Saratoga about it; I was trying to figure why Kentucky horses continually underperform at Saratoga and wondered if it was because they couldn't run on certain drugs. Crist asked me if I was talking about adjunct, and said he didn't think that was the reason.

[RonTiller]

Ron, thanks for the details.

Does the PP info from your company include the "A" or adjunct designation, as a data item separate and distinct from LASIX ("L")?
I'm finishing up a set of new PPs for a project we are working on so I was interested to check on the Adjunct data when I saw this thread.

Medications in the Equibase data are simply listed in one field, with all applicable med codes in that field. If both Lasix and Adjunct, "LA". If just Adjunct (in a few cases, there is Adjunct without Lasix listed), then "A". Adjunct (code "A") is listed, as applicable, in the Equibase database for all races.

Since we have it (and display it), I presume everybody who gets Equibase data has it as well. It is then a choice whether to display it or not. I don't know a reason not to display it, other than maybe being caught with old software that doesn't recognize "A" as a medication code.

[Tom]

What caught my ear was this sayng how many horses won first time on or first time in a while....but I was not able to verify it.