Originally Posted by Tom (Post 2441210)

Before anyone crowns Franky or makes him a saint, why is he NOT banning race day drugs at his other tracks?

What will end up happening is the REPORTING of race day drugs will end.
Lasix is essential to many trainers, and not for bleeding.

Originally Posted by Tom (Post 2441210)

Before anyone crowns Franky or makes him a saint, why is he NOT banning race day drugs at his other tracks?
....

Originally Posted by Hambletonian (Post 2441125)

Are you being serious? Unnecessary changes that will hurt the industry?

Stronach actually is ahead of the curve here. Keep in mind that the liberalization of allowable medications came about when field size was the imperative. The NYRA circuit was the last hold out. And what is proposed is pretty damn similar to what existed on the NYRA circuit when I was a pup. When the overnight horses would race 20+ races a year. So this is a back to the future moment. And since simulcasting came about, we have seen ever decreasing race meets and field size anyway.

Does anyone here believe that business could go on as usual? Government take from racing is such a small part of the nationwide gambling rake that the disappearance of all racing forever would hardly be noticed by the average person.

And let's face it, if the SA problem causes anyone to really put the industry under scrutiny in terms of equine health, the data gathered would be devastating.

What I would like to know is how many horses have been injured at SA this winter. It would be really weird if that number did not exceed the number that have been euthanized.

I would like to see a cradle to grave health passport created for every registered thoroughbred, where all injuries, treatment and medication are listed.And make the database accessible to the public. And make every horse making its first career start (and first start of a layoff) be subject to a complete physical exam, including xrays of all four limbs.

Injuries will never be completely eliminated...but steps can be taken to reduce the number of starts by compromised horses, which should lower the overall injury and death rate.

Originally Posted by Redboard (Post 2441231)

I had the same thought. What about Gulfstream? That's why these major changes like this have to be made by the country as a whole. It doesn't work otherwise.

Originally Posted by Rex Phinney (Post 2441007)

Agreed, and if you already have an uphill battle on the track closure, why make it harder on yourself? Right now, Santa Anita is effectively piling on themselves.

Originally Posted by Redboard (Post 2441217)

Wow! I almost fell off my chair when I read the article. Hope it works!

As many here noticed, Stronach said nothing about switching back to synthetic. The Jockey Club has been doing a study for the past 10 years, called The Equine Injury Database, and they’ve never found that horses on Lasix broke down any more frequently. They have found that surface does matter.

The fatality rates associated with each racing surface were as follows:
-On turf surfaces, there were 1.36 fatalities per 1,000 starts in 2017, compared to 1.09 in 2016.
-On dirt surfaces, there were 1.74 fatalities per 1,000 starts in 2017, compared to 1.7 in 2016.
-On synthetic surfaces, the rate of fatal injuries remained stable at 1.1 fatalities per 1,000 starts.

http://jockeyclub.com/default.asp?se...=10&story=1039

Originally Posted by AlsoEligible (Post 2441009)

Sounds about right.

Of course there's also the (increasingly likely) chance that someone puts a measure on the 2020 ballot to ban racing in California, and all of it is a moot point. When that happens, I suppose the real estate value takes a hit, so TSG would be smart to get out beforehand.

Either way, after today there's no doubt in my mind that these three months have killed California racing. Now it's just a matter of figuring out how it'll go down.

Originally Posted by Dahossdaboss (Post 2441222)

If lasix is the issue wouldn’t horses be breaking down everywhere?

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2441265)

Since nearly all horses run on Lasix (95%), how could any study really even be done?

Originally Posted by thespaah (Post 2441264)

That's one angle.
Suppose this....Trainers who for whatever reason will not race at SA or GGF may take a second look,
Perhaps those who stay away because they stay clear of the meds and believe they cannot compete against those bigger outfits, now have a reason to consider racing there.
Don't know. Just spit balling here.
In any event, the current model for a ton of reasons isn't working

Originally Posted by Rex Phinney (Post 2441288)

Am I correct in assuming that the majority of horses will not be on Lasix for workouts? How many of the now 22 deaths have been during workouts?

Originally Posted by Redboard (Post 2441283)

Not all, some are actually allergic to the stuff and some times trainers try running without it as a last resort, although rare. Many first time starters run without it. There are over 100 tracks involved with the study. That would give you a sample in the thousands per year that do not run with Lasix .