Winning horse at Aqueduct got Lasix by mistake

[andymays]

http://www.drf.com/news/winning-horse-aqueduct-got-lasix-mistake

Excerpt:

OZONE PARK, N.Y. – A horse who was mistakenly given a shot of the anti-bleeding medication Lasix won a race at Aqueduct last week unbeknownst to the betting public.

Excerpt:

Summer Sunset had not received Lasix in any of his four previous starts, including the previous two made in New York. Bettors use first-time Lasix as a key handicapping angle. Summer Sunset, who was beaten 50 3/4 lengths in an overnight stakes at Aqueduct in his race previous to Dec. 29, also wore blinkers for the first time in that race. He returned $11 for a $2 win wager.

[tbwinner]

The article states they may disqualify the horse from the purse winnings. Isn't this completely NYRA's fault? There were only 74 horses entered that day, you think the NYRA vet would make it a point to watch out for the one NOT entered on Lasix.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Isn't this completely NYRA's fault?...

I would say no. It's a definite "no" for me if a horse does not get lasix that should be treated as SOMEONE should be at the barn to ensure that the horse is treated within the time frame. Though this scenario is different in that there isn't technically a reason to be present all raceday to actually prevent a horse from being treated, without reading the NYSRWB racing rules, I'd be surprised if there is not a "trainer responsibilty" clause that presumes the trainer responsible for ultimate care and custody from unscheduled treatments on an "in-today" horse.

It's a shame, particularly since after reading the article it seems like a problem that the NYRA vets have had several chances to work harder at preventing. But, with that number of similar problems, it's hardly unreasonable to expect the barn to be aware that its a reality and ensure that someone is there on raceday to monitor who is doing what to which horses.

[5k-claim]

I agree that if a horse doesn't get the Lasix that it is scheduled to then it is ultimately the trainer's fault for not getting kinda antsy at the '4 hours and 5 minutes before post mark' and getting on the phone to someone.

But I am not as sure on this one.

It seems like it wasn't that long ago that people wanted race day isolation barns where state officials controlled everything. Now, we are holding trainers responsible for hanging around their barn and making sure the state doesn't come in and give a shot at 4 hours out that it isn't supposed to? I am not really feeling that one.

Most of us make darn sure to get the shot at the 4 hour mark and then go and get paperwork done or get something to eat for a while. If the horse can stand quietly, there really isn't much to do until about 90 minutes out or so. Leave the horse alone. What if the trainer left the grounds to go pick up hay or supplies..., are you are wanting him to make a special trip back at the 4 hour mark just to make sure the state doesn't give a lasix shot? If the horse is not scheduled to get Lasix, then that is really arbitrary timing to keep track of.

I am all for taking responsibility, but this one is on the state.


I would say no. It's a definite "no" for me if a horse does not get lasix that should be treated as SOMEONE should be at the barn to ensure that the horse is treated within the time frame. Though this scenario is different in that there isn't technically a reason to be present all raceday to actually prevent a horse from being treated, without reading the NYSRWB racing rules, I'd be surprised if there is not a "trainer responsibilty" clause that presumes the trainer responsible for ultimate care and custody from unscheduled treatments on an "in-today" horse.

It's a shame, particularly since after reading the article it seems like a problem that the NYRA vets have had several chances to work harder at preventing. But, with that number of similar problems, it's hardly unreasonable to expect the barn to be aware that its a reality and ensure that someone is there on raceday to monitor who is doing what to which horses.Depends. How big is "the barn"?

.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...But I am not as sure on this one.
...

Bear in mind that the horse was in the second race if we want to deal specifically with this case and I'm not sure what excuse you could really come up with unless it's a one-man-show and "everyone" happened to be at the track during training hours. We're talking sometime around 8:30 - 9:00 am.

I can't say that I sat at the barn all day as one of those one man shows everytime I had a horse in. But, if something like this had happened to me, my argument to the stews would begin along the lines of... "Now, I know I'm ultimately responsible, but come on..."

I still can't see how this is "completely NYRA's fault" as the original poster suggests. I should probably read the rules but I'm too lazy. The gist of my objection is that most jurisdictions that I've been to, as I'm sure you know, always fall back on the trainer responsibilty clause in these cases. Sometimes it is unfair, sometimes it just seems unreasonable. But, if it is in the rules and applies to the scenario, reality of life at the track as you outlined and all, you still have to shoulder enough of the burden to render (in this case) NYRA less than "completely at fault."

[foregoforever]

http://www.drf.com/news/winning-horse-aqueduct-got-lasix-mistake

Excerpt:

OZONE PARK, N.Y. – A horse who was mistakenly given a shot of the anti-bleeding medication Lasix won a race at Aqueduct last week unbeknownst to the betting public.

Excerpt:



The folks who bet the second-place horse, at 29-1, might be a bit peeved.

[JustRalph]

from the article............

Was the horse that ran on Nov 20 for Linda Rice listed in the form as with our without lasix? running at the back @ 8/5 ? I hope they had it listed right in the form.........

[johnhannibalsmith]

Okay, okay, I broke down and went to the NYSWRB rules since I started to feel guilty about basing my "gist" around something that I was basically presuming to be the case.

As I read the section, I realized how much more I prefer the wording to the NYS rule than some of the others I have encountered. But alas, they end it with enough of a loosey-goosey statement that it basically contains the same "catchall" that most do.

4043.4. Trainer's responsibility.

A trainer shall be responsible at all times for the condition of all horses trained by him. No trainer shall start or permit a horse in his custody, care or control to be started if he knows, or he might have known or have cause to believe, that the horse has received any drug or other restricted substance that could result in a positive test. The trainer shall be held responsible for any positive test unless he can show by substantial evidence that neither he nor any employee nor agent was responsible for the administration of the drug or other restricted substance. Every trainer must guard each horse trained by him in such manner and for such period of time prior to racing the horse so as to prevent any person, whether or not employed by or connected with the owner or trainer, from administering any drug or other restricted substance to such horse contrary to this Part.

[5k-claim]

I still can't see how this is "completely NYRA's fault" as the original poster suggests. I should probably read the rules but I'm too lazy. ....Oh, I see. You were going at it more from a legal angle. On that I cannot disagree. I am sure it is in the fine print somewhere.

I was looking at the OP's statement more from a biblical perspective. As in, "Hey stewards- am I my state vet's keeper?" Plus those guys are sneaky. They can dart in and out in about 20 seconds.

I guess they need to re-do the purse money. Shame for the winners who lost their horse. I think the state should just eat an extra winner payout.

.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Oh, I see. You were going at it more from a legal angle. On that I cannot disagree. I am sure it is in the fine print somewhere.

I was looking at the OP's statement more from a biblical perspective. As in, "Hey stewards- am I my state vet's keeper?" Plus those guys are sneaky. They can dart in and out in about 20 seconds.

I guess they need to re-do the purse money. Shame for the winners who lost their horse. I think the state should just eat an extra winner payout.

.

Trust me, I agree with you in the practical sense and in theory. This is one of those scenarios where unless the guy was at the kitchen or something and someone told him the vet had been there while he was gone - so he ran the horse knowing that it had been treated in error - they need to use a little discretion when it comes time to sanction the connections.

[5k-claim]

Trust me, I agree with you in the practical sense and in theory. This is one of those scenarios where unless the guy was at the kitchen or something and someone told him the vet had been there while he was gone - so he ran the horse knowing that it had been treated in error - they need to use a little discretion when it comes time to sanction the connections. Yep. You're right.

And that is probably what they will do. To public outcry, maybe.

Like I said, I am not trying to get out of responsibility, and keep in mind that your last bolded part from the rules even covers trainers "guarding" their horses for drugs that have detection times of 3-4 days, perhaps. That is an awful lot of guarding to do. But that is the responsibility of being a trainer, and what you sign up for.

So you have to take responsibility for who is doing your night feeding and so forth, but this is the state vets in this case.... wow. That sucks for them, that they can't even trust those guys. (Or girls- I don't mean to be sexist.)

.

[Tom]

Time to lower the take out another point or two?

And the beat goes on......

[davew]

I am not sure how NYRA runs, but I thought most places had an isolation barn that horses had to stay for quite a few hours before start time. The horse is loosely guarded by a groom. The state vet administers drugs and levels required.

If all horses running were scheduled to get Lasix, how would the groom know differently? The state vet is clearly liable as backside workers have been trained to help and do whatever the vet requests.

If purse is taken away, a lawsuit is bound to follow as well as a state vet probably looking for another job, as this is as big an error as the stewards taking down the wrong horse.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I am not sure how NYRA runs...

No detention barn.

http://www.drf.com/news/nyra-eliminating-detention-barn

[PaceAdvantage]

Mistakes are going to happen, but it's good that the NYRA is showing transparency on this issue. Hopefully, it will lead to fewer mistakes like this being made in the future.

Since andy is quite fond of transparency, I'm sure he would agree with me.

But maybe he'd rather get rid of the NYRA and replace them with the CHRB. :lol:

[Robert Goren]

NYRA has problems. First it was the takeout problem and now this. These are public relations nightmares. They are signs of shoddy management. In every company I ever worked if two things like this happened back to back, heads would roll.

[Tom]

It boggles my mind that procedures are not in place to prevent this from ever happening. This ain't rocket science. what happened is 100% unacceptable and serious corrective actions IMMEDIATELY are required. If an equivalent happened in my business, it would be all hands on deck and nothing else would be on anyone's agenda.

At this level, mistakes are NOT acceptable, period. They only happen when organizations are not doing their jobs.

[cj]

I'm sure it was just assumed that every horse runs on Lasix these days. It had probably been a few months since one hadn't.

[Tom]

If I assume things in my work, I can get fired or fined or go to jail.
And I am not affecting nearly as much money as one NYRA pool.
It is their responsibility to ensure no one assumes - that they KNOW.
This is a day-to-day process, not a fluke occurrence like the take out.
Zero defects is the only acceptable standard.

[cj]

If I assume things in my work, I can get fired or fined or go to jail.
And I am not affecting nearly as much money as one NYRA pool.
It is their responsibility to ensure no one assumes - that they KNOW.
This is a day-to-day process, not a fluke occurrence like the take out.
Zero defects is the only acceptable standard.

It was just a joke Tom.

[cj]

It was just a joke Tom.

On a more serious note, this isn't a good thing. However, the only reason we even know about it is because NYRA vets administer Lasix, not private vets. The only other track that does this is Woodbine. In one year since that rule was put in place, exactly one horse has run while being treated with Lasix that should not have been. Three others were administered Lasix and scratched, caught beforehand.

Do people think this happens more or less often at tracks without this vet rule? I think the answer is pretty obvious. The difference is we NEVER hear about it. I wish all circuits were as transparent as NYRA.

[Tom]

It was just a joke Tom.
Oh. :blush:

[Midnight Cruiser]

http://www.drf.com/news/winning-horse-aqueduct-got-lasix-mistake

Excerpt:

OZONE PARK, N.Y. – A horse who was mistakenly given a shot of the anti-bleeding medication Lasix won a race at Aqueduct last week unbeknownst to the betting public.

Excerpt:

Summer Sunset had not received Lasix in any of his four previous starts, including the previous two made in New York. Bettors use first-time Lasix as a key handicapping angle. Summer Sunset, who was beaten 50 3/4 lengths in an overnight stakes at Aqueduct in his race previous to Dec. 29, also wore blinkers for the first time in that race. He returned $11 for a $2 win wager.

lost his last by 50 and only paid 11 to win?

[Tom]

Do people think this happens more or less often at tracks without this vet rule? I think the answer is pretty obvious. The difference is we NEVER hear about it. I wish all circuits were as transparent as NYRA.

What assurances do we have that even when lasix is administered, the proper dose is given? I have no idea what a dose is, but say for argument, a horse need 5 units to prevent bleeding. What if he is given 2 units? All we see in the PPs is L.

I agree, NYRA is transparent, but I would rather they be pro-active.
Control internal process is part of the real world.

Maybe they need a good Quality Control guy on staff? :cool:

[FantasticDan]

lost his last by 50 and only paid 11 to win?The stakes race he lost by 50 was a toss.

[FenceBored]

On a more serious note, this isn't a good thing. However, the only reason we even know about it is because NYRA vets administer Lasix, not private vets. The only other track that does this is Woodbine. In one year since that rule was put in place, exactly one horse has run while being treated with Lasix that should not have been. Three others were administered Lasix and scratched, caught beforehand.

Do people think this happens more or less often at tracks without this vet rule? I think the answer is pretty obvious. The difference is we NEVER hear about it. I wish all circuits were as transparent as NYRA.

No, the only reason we know about it is ... the horse won. He won, therefore he was tested, and in testing they determined his level of Lasix.

There were 4 horses who had run the day before (the 28th) at AQU whom the charts say ran without Lasix. Given that none of them finished higher than 4th, it's probable that none of them were tested, so we can't say for sure whether any of them may have mistakenly gotten Lasix. Of course, the fact that none of them finished better than 4th is an argument that they didn't mistakenly receive a Lasix shot, but that's another story.

[JustRalph]

lost his last by 50 and only paid 11 to win?

This was odd to me also. I downloaded the card and ran it thru my stuff and a fair odds line per my software came out to be about 5-6 to 1

So I guess he was placed right and the payoff not out of bounds

[5k-claim]

On a more serious note, this isn't a good thing. However, the only reason we even know about it is because NYRA vets administer Lasix, not private vets. The only other track that does this is Woodbine. In one year since that rule was put in place, exactly one horse has run while being treated with Lasix that should not have been. Three others were administered Lasix and scratched, caught beforehand.

Do people think this happens more or less often at tracks without this vet rule? I think the answer is pretty obvious. The difference is we NEVER hear about it. I wish all circuits were as transparent as NYRA.We know about it because the horse tested positive after the race. The same thing would have happened if the horse was given the Lasix by a private vet and tested positive.

Believe it or not, and it may seem counterintuitive and decidedly less than obvious, but it may actually be better for the private vets to give the Lasix because there is a good chance for communication to occur between the private vet and trainer- even if only to work out the payment for the shot. :) The private vets are in better communication with their clients than what the state vets are, because they know them and work with them regularly. (Not as much chit-chatting with the state guys, either.)

This was an instance of a lack of communication, at the very least.

The private vets are obviously held responsible for the information they give to the stewards (with their name on it) regarding which horses they gave lasix to and the dosage amounts. If they don't let the stewards know the trainer gets a phone call back at the barn with an opportunity to answer the question, "What the hell happened?"

.

[cj]

We know about it because the horse tested positive after the race. The same thing would have happened if the horse was given the Lasix by a private vet and tested positive.

Believe it or not, and it may seem counterintuitive and decidedly less than obvious, but it may actually be better for the private vets to give the Lasix because there is a good chance for communication to occur between the private vet and trainer- even if only to work out the payment for the shot. :) The private vets are in better communication with their clients than what the state vets are, because they know them and work with them regularly. (Not as much chit-chatting with the state guys, either.)

This was an instance of a lack of communication, at the very least.

The private vets are obviously held responsible for the information they give to the stewards (with their name on it) regarding which horses they gave lasix to and the dosage amounts. If they don't let the stewards know the trainer gets a phone call back at the barn with an opportunity to answer the question, "What the hell happened?"

.

Having been around the game and seeing how things are run at some tracks, I don't think things run nearly as smoothly and transparently as you would have us believe.

[5k-claim]

Having been around the game and seeing how things are run at some tracks, I don't think things run nearly as smoothly and transparently as you would have us believe.I know... the whole sport is dirty. And private vets are not responsible for turning in Lasix information (with their names- and licenses- on it) to the stewards.

Look, I am not saying that having state vets give the Lasix is necessarily a bad idea. (Except that there is no free-market competition at that point and they can jack up the rates to whatever they want.) I don't really care that much one way or the other, and from a public relations standpoint it could certainly be better for the state guys to do it. No problem.

I am just telling you that there was (apparently) a lack of communication element to this event, and that private vets are in better communications with their clients. And they are also held responsible for the information they report to the stewards.

.

[TurfRuler]

Lasix does not improve the performance of race horses. :rolleyes: Racing authorities thoughout the country are now discussing banning lasix medication on race days for thoroughbreds. Some trainers are against this because they believe that lasix is a beneficial drug for the minor aches and pains that horses frequently have, sort of like aspirin they claim. What a coup for the winners and the people in the know. I know I was not one of the ones let in on this secret medication delivery.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Some trainers are against this because they believe that lasix is a beneficial drug for the minor aches and pains that horses frequently have, sort of like aspirin they claim...

I'd like to be running against a field trained by those guys.

[kid sapphire]

Folks of all the drugs to concern yourselves with at the track...Lasix who cares, its a ot to do about nothing.

[PaceAdvantage]

No, the only reason we know about it is ... the horse won. He won, therefore he was tested, and in testing they determined his level of Lasix.We know about it because the horse tested positive after the race. The same thing would have happened if the horse was given the Lasix by a private vet and tested positive.It constantly amazes me how people continue to post on this board as if they are in possession of facts, when it is crystal clear that they are not.

The truth of the matter is that you are both remarkably wrong.

The reason we know about this is NOT because the horse won and was tested. Did you two not bother to read the Dave Grening DRF article linked to earlier in this thread?

Allow me:

That fact was not discovered until after the race was made official, according to Carmine Donofrio, the New York State Racing and Wagering Board steward.NYRA hired four veterinarians who administer Lasix each morning. According to NYRA officials, the vets are given two documents that guide them to horses which are to be given Lasix. The vets then meet after the second race daily to go over the paperwork, according to a NYRA spokesman. Since this happened in the second race, the mistake was not caught in time.You can read the rest of the article for other details, such as Lasix administration time frames and why the horse running early in the card was one of the contributing factors to this mistake not being caught in time to scratch the horse.

And my post is by no means a defense of the NYRA vets. It appears a change in policy might be in order to prevent horses from running on improper race day medication early in the card.

But the reason why you know about this incident is not because the horse won and was tested.

[5k-claim]

Allow me:
...But the reason why you know about this incident is not because the horse won and was tested. You don't think so? (How do you think the tests are going to come back? My money is squarely on "positive", and I am not even a psychic. But if you want me to hold off on my statement that "the horse tested positive after the race", I will wait out the mystery of how the results will come back with you.)

The horse won $24,000. And was claimed. And all of that was thrown into a blender and then tossed on the wall, because they will have to consider taking the purse money back and they already had to offer the new owners the chance to return the horse.

But now that I think about it, I agree with you. I am sure that there would have been a press release revealing this incident to the public even if the horse had finished dead last and was not claimed. Just as I am sure no one aware of the mistake was hoping the horse had gone ahead and finished last.... instead of winning. And being claimed.

And all of that is actually a great testament to just how honest this sport really is run, in case anyone had thoughts otherwise.

So, thanks for the correction. I agree with you. The win, and subsequent drug testing, had nothing to do with the fact that we know about this.

.

[PaceAdvantage]

You don't think so? (How do you think the tests are going to come back? My money is squarely on "positive", and I am not even a psychic. But if you want me to hold off on my statement that "the horse tested positive after the race", I will wait out the mystery of how the results will come back with you.)

The horse won $24,000. And was claimed. And all of that was thrown into a blender and then tossed on the wall, because they will have to consider taking the purse money back and they already had to offer the new owners the chance to return the horse.

But now that I think about it, I agree with you. I am sure that there would have been a press release revealing this incident to the public even if the horse had finished dead last and was not claimed. Just as I am sure no one aware of the mistake was hoping the horse had gone ahead and finished last.... instead of winning. And being claimed.

And all of that is actually a great testament to just how honest this sport really is run, in case anyone had thoughts otherwise.

So, thanks for the correction. I agree with you. The win, and subsequent drug testing, had nothing to do with the fact that we know about this.

.Your ignorance knows no bounds. I'm willing to wager any amount of money that the reason this was discovered was NOT due to the horse winning and being tested. The error was discovered way before there was any time to send samples to a lab and have test results come back. That's for starters.

Thus, the horse didn't have to win. The error would have been known regardless.

[cj]

It constantly amazes me how people continue to post on this board as if they are in possession of facts, when it is crystal clear that they are not.

The truth of the matter is that you are both remarkably wrong.



Sometimes it is better to just let them go on and on...

[cj]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. I'm willing to wager any amount of money that the reason this was discovered was NOT due to the horse winning and being tested. The error was discovered way before there was any time to send samples to a lab and have test results come back. That's for starters.

I'm no expert here, but why in the world would anyone spend money to even bother testing for Lasix? When was the last time I horse was DQed or a trainer fined for testing positive for Lasix?

[5k-claim]

Your ignorance knows no bounds. I'm willing to wager any amount of money that the reason this was discovered was NOT due to the horse winning and being tested. The error was discovered way before there was any time to send samples to a lab and have test results come back. That's for starters.

Thus, the horse didn't have to win. The error would have been known regardless.No kidding.

The question is not when the mistake was "discovered" by officials. The question is why "we know about it". You and I. And the rest of the public.

I stated the opinion that "we know about it" because the horse won, and it was going to come out sooner or later. You are apparently saying that "we know about it" because it was discovered at the vets meeting, and it would have been diligently reported to the public, upon discovery, even had the horse finished in dead last place.

I actually like your version better.

.

[PaceAdvantage]

No kidding.

The question is not when the mistake was "discovered" by officials. The question is why "we know about it". You and I. And the rest of the public.

I stated the opinion that "we know about it" because the horse won, and it was going to come out sooner or later. You are apparently saying that "we know about it" because it was discovered at the vets meeting, and it would have been diligently reported to the public, upon discovery, even had the horse finished in dead last place.

I actually like your version better.

.Now you're changing your story. You specifically stated "We know about it because the horse tested positive after the race."

That's a direct quote. Now you're trying to change the issue.

All I'm addressing is what you stated, so that there aren't any misconceptions.

[Robert Goren]

The horse ran on lasix and the the betting public was not informed of it as required by the rules of racing. How it was discovered is irrelevant. The most important thing is that they put in a system be put in place that the betting public can some faith in. I do not know how anyone else feels, but to me that hasn't happened yet. Not that they care about the small amount I wager, but I will not be making any wagers there until I believe that this sort of thing won't happen again.

[5k-claim]

Now you're changing your story. You specifically stated "We know about it because the horse tested positive after the race."

That's a direct quote. Now you're trying to change the issue.

All I'm addressing is what you stated, so that there aren't any misconceptions.Changing what story? I keep saying the same thing.

Let me take my original quote, what I specifically stated. "We know about it because the horse tested positive after the race." and slowly walk you through it. I guess what I could have said is this:

"In my subjective opinion, the reason this incident is now reported to and known by the public is because the horse in question won the race and $24,000 (which may be taken back), was claimed, and will undoubtedly come back with a positive test for Lasix even though he was not entered on Lasix. Given all of this, the incident would probably come to light sooner or later through some party. Had the horse finished dead last and not been claimed, it is conceivable that we, the public, would not know about it."

Is that extended version of the statement any clearer to you?

.

[Dahoss9698]

but I will not be making any wagers there until I believe that this sort of thing won't happen again.

How will they survive?

[PaceAdvantage]

Let me take my original quote, what I specifically stated. "We know about it because the horse tested positive after the race." and slowly walk you through it.No need to walk me through it or revise it or expand upon it.

I was addressing your specific statement (yours AND FenceBoard's) because both were flat out dead wrong. You made it quite clear the only way we knew about this was because the horse tested positive after winning the race, which was false. We knew about it because the vets realized their mistake after the fact and reported it to the stewards shortly after the race was official and unfortunately, too late to have scratched the horse.

Any conjecture as to what we would have known had the horse finished out of the money has absolutely no bearing on this particular point I am trying to make clear.

If you're going to post on here as if you know, make sure you actually DO know, or else, those who actually DO know will correct you.

[Robert Goren]

How will they survive?Probably very well since the new money coming from the slot machines will almost cover the lost revenue from my missing wagers.:lol:

[jerry-g]

I am curious about the time the medication error occurred. Did the horse receive the medication just prior to the race or had it been given a lot earlier and perhaps time to discover the error and provide some sort of intervention. Every day humans receive medication in error across this country and it is just a fact of life. Hopefully no one dyes from it but sadly some do.

[FenceBored]

It constantly amazes me how people continue to post on this board as if they are in possession of facts, when it is crystal clear that they are not.

The truth of the matter is that you are both remarkably wrong.

The reason we know about this is NOT because the horse won and was tested. Did you two not bother to read the Dave Grening DRF article linked to earlier in this thread?

Allow me:

You can read the rest of the article for other details, such as Lasix administration time frames and why the horse running early in the card was one of the contributing factors to this mistake not being caught in time to scratch the horse.

And my post is by no means a defense of the NYRA vets. It appears a change in policy might be in order to prevent horses from running on improper race day medication early in the card.

But the reason why you know about this incident is not because the horse won and was tested.

My apologies, I was wrong.

[jerry-g]

Me too wrong. I see 4 1/2 hours prior to the race. I'm sure they will do their best to avoid future happenings.

[FenceBored]

I'm no expert here, but why in the world would anyone spend money to even bother testing for Lasix? When was the last time I horse was DQed or a trainer fined for testing positive for Lasix?


According to the RMTC Recent Rulings (http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_recentrulings.asp) page:

12/26/11 Bernard Flint - $500 fine - Furosemide overage

They certainly test levels, and I'd assume that a horse that wasn't supposed to have furosemide in his system testing at any level would be a violation.

[5k-claim]

If you're going to post on here as if you know, make sure you actually DO know, or else, those who actually DO know will correct you. When you copied my quote out of Post #28, did you happen to note the statement (from Post #21) that I put in bold and was directly responding to?

To remind you, here is that statement from Post #21:
However, the only reason we even know about it is because NYRA vets administer Lasix, not private vets. Now, that statement is an opinion. It is not a fact. It is not even true. It is also an opinion that I happen to disagree with. I do not even know why the introduction of "private vets" into this conversation was even made. But it was, and not by me.

My opposing opinion, and direct response, is given in Post #28 where you copied my quote from. I do not know what you think you are looking at in my post, but what is there is an exchange of opposing opinions as to why this incident has made it to the light of day and out to the public.

Now, if you would like to give your "If you're going to post on here as if you know, make sure you actually DO know" speech again, would you like to direct it to the author of the statement in Post #21 that I was directly responding to?

What is this statement?However, the only reason we even know about it is because NYRA vets administer Lasix, not private vets.(A) fact
(b) opinion

.

[cj]

When you copied my quote out of Post #28, did you happen to note the statement (from Post #21) that I put in bold and was directly responding to?

To remind you, here is that statement from Post #21:
Now, that statement is an opinion. It is not a fact. It is not even true. It is also an opinion that I happen to disagree with. I do not even know why the introduction of "private vets" into this conversation was even made. But it was, and not by me.

My opposing opinion, and direct response, is given in Post #28 where you copied my quote from. I do not know what you think you are looking at in my post, but what is there is an exchange of opposing opinions as to why this incident has made it to the light of day and out to the public.

Now, if you would like to give your "If you're going to post on here as if you know, make sure you actually DO know" speech again, would you like to direct it to the author of the statement in Post #21 that I was directly responding to?

What is this statement?(A) fact
(b) opinion

.

Here is where I think you are wrong. The vets reported this to the stewards. I don't think any private vets are doing that when they make mistakes. It is known at this point in time because NYRA vets made a mistake and reported it. So yes, I think that is the only reason we know about it. Opinion I guess, since I don't know with 100% certainty, but probably fact.

Would it have been caught later? Who really knows. But we know about it because of the system NYRA has in place.

[5k-claim]

Here is where I think you are wrong. The vets reported this to the stewards. I don't think any private vets are doing that when they make mistakes. It is known at this point in time because NYRA vets made a mistake and reported it. So yes, I think that is the only reason we know about it. Opinion I guess, since I don't know with 100% certainty, but probably fact.

Would it have been caught later? Who really knows. But we know about it because of the system NYRA has in place.Alright, now I understand why you said that.

Were you thinking that states that have private vets administering the race day Lasix are doing so 'fast and loose' without any paper trails or reporting to the state (and available to the stewards) by the private vets (complete with their license numbers)?

Here in Kentucky, that information (from the private vets) is turned in to the state (test barn) at least twice. The first half or so of the races before the first post, and the rest of the races not long after that, depending mostly on what time the last race goes off.

The main thing is this: The state guys in the test barn have to have that information on a race in advance of that race going over to the paddock. If you missed your Lasix, they let the stewards know. They know before you even head over to the paddock.

[Source: the test barn.]

In Indiana, it is even more obvious. The vets have two people with them when they come to give you your Lasix. One of them being a security employee in a red shirt writing something down on a clipboard. The second person is either an assistant or a witness... or a who knows what all else. (They read the lip tattoo off to the person with the clipboard. So I guess that is a sort of 'double blind' security measure for making sure they are treating the right horse.) So in Indiana, you always have one vet with two witnesses in tow.

[Source: having stood there many times wondering who all those people were.]

Regardless of whether it is state vets or private vets giving the race day Lasix, the way this was going to be caught is exactly the same either way. (Or at least so where I run.)

* The paper trail from the vets (state or private) to the state (and available to the stewards) on their race day Lasix administrations

* In the case of a post-race drug test, the impending results of that test (which in this instance will obviously happen. Bank on it.)

It is the same.

As I said before, I think the biggest benefit to letting the state guys do it is mainly just the public relations benefit. As even you have shown, people are just going to trust the perception of it more.

Note: If it is true that New York had no such policies in place for private vets to report to the state- until this new procedure of state vets administering the Lasix was put in place- then I cannot imagine anyone ever considering New York racing as a shining example for other states to follow. That would have just been ridiculous. I cannot imagine that it was true.

I have never run in New York, though.

.

[TurfRuler]

Could any of the dieties on the board explain this quote to me in a very simplified form, for some reason I see something shady in these comments:

"According to NYRA officials, since January 2011, there have been three instances in which a horse was scheduled to receive Lasix but was mistakenly not given the medication. In all three instances – each occurring in a race later than the second one on the card – the horse was scratched. NYRA officials said in the six months before January 2011, there were “many more errors than the four that have occurred,’’ NYRA spokesman Dan Silver said."



Winning horse at Aqueduct got Lasix by mistake
By David Grening

http://www.drf.com/news/winning-horse-aqueduct-got-lasix-mistake

[PaceAdvantage]

Could any of the dieties on the board explain this quote to me in a very simplified form, for some reason I see something shady in these comments:I'm no deity, but I'll try my best:

Since Jan 2011, NYRA Vets have been administering Lasix, and apparently, have been making far fewer "mistakes" than their predecessors....

[Cardus]

I'm no deity, but I'll try my best:

Since Jan 2011, NYRA Vets have been administering Lasix, and apparently, have been making far fewer "mistakes" than their predecessors....

Oh sure you are.

[PaceAdvantage]

Oh sure you are.I'll grant you one thing...I am pretty much omnipresent around here...