Stronach Group announces ban on race day meds

[JeremyJet]

How often has the main track at Santa Anita been torn up and replaced going back to the synthetic era? Seems like it would be a large number compared to other tracks around the country ... by far. Must not be a factor since I have seen no mention of this. I can't help but wonder, though.

Seems kind of silly to implement these rules at only two tracks. What's that going to solve? Just going to create problems like the synthetic track mandates.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by spiketoo

https://www.latimes.com/sports/more/...315-story.html

John Sadler, trainer of last year’s Eclipse Award and Breeders’ Cup Classic winner Accelerate, fears a lot of horses will leave California if they can’t use Lasix. Sadler, and other trainers belonging to the California Thoroughbred Trainers, will be meeting at Santa Anita late this morning to discuss the latest changes. The Thoroughbred Owners of California plans a conference call on Saturday afternoon.

“This stuff is so new, I don’t know how it will be implemented or when,” Sadler said. “[Management] has to have some serious discussions on their side. They’ve carded 13 races for the Santa Anita Derby [on April 6]. You have to cut back the number of races and race dates, all those things. … This kind of make-it-up-as-you-go-along doesn’t make sense.”

While resentment is high among the trainers, most are reluctant to speak publicly until either they get answers or the situation plays out further.

“I’m not saying anything,” Hall of Fame trainer Bob Baffert said. “I’m going to wait and see.”

Sounds like the trainers are as confused as everybody else.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

How often has the main track at Santa Anita been torn up and replaced going back to the synthetic era? Seems like it would be a large number compared to other tracks around the country ... by far. Must not be a factor since I have seen no mention of this. I can't help but wonder, though.

Seems kind of silly to implement these rules at only two tracks. What's that going to solve? Just going to create problems like the synthetic track mandates.

Serious question- has the synthetic track mandate "created problems" at Golden Gate? Did it create any problems at Hollywood Park before it closed?



The mandate created some problems at Santa Anita because they couldn't figure out how to properly install a synthetic track there. The rest of them worked out OK. And California racing would honestly be in better shape now had the mandate been maintained and SA simply required to keep trying until they had an installation that worked.

[cutchemist42]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Because while there might be other causes than the surface, Lasix isn't directly making horses snap their legs only at Santa Anita and no other track.

True....but this at least gives them a breather against PETA and the media. I mean, Ian Meyers was reporting they were close to tabling this to legislature in the next few months, and that the Governor isnt a fan of the sport as well.

You don't want this sport to reach the ballot because it would lose easily.

[Someday Silent]

I think the timing of the race day Lasix ban is bad. Those in charge should have at least phased it out and given the horsemen a heads-up first.

But, I don't think banning race day Lasix and other meds is completely wrong. U.S. horses have gone to Dubai, Japan, Hong Kong, and Britain (all of which don't allow raceday meds) and won or did ok without Lasix. Even if they finished up the track, none of them fell over bleeding from the nostrils as John Sadler describes.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, Lasix is a potent diuretic and has the ability to mask other drugs. Also due to its diuretic properties, Lasix can cause the body to flush out electrolytes and micronutrients which are essential for bone health and formation as well as muscle health. So its impossible to say that Lasix has nothing to do with breakdowns... anything with an effect upon bones and muscles is potentially connected to breakdowns.

Of course, the use of bisphosphonates probably compromises bone health more than anything, but perhaps that subect needs its own thread.

[JeremyJet]

Originally Posted by cutchemist42

True....but this at least gives them a breather against PETA and the media. I mean, Ian Meyers was reporting they were close to tabling this to legislature in the next few months, and that the Governor isnt a fan of the sport as well.

You don't want this sport to reach the ballot because it would lose easily.

This seems to be the case since some kind of whip restrictions are part of this. Pandering to the political climate in California.

[airford1]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

Money (purses) motivate. Trainers and owners like money. If purses stay relatively the same I predict not much of a change in the horse population.

I would agree, but purses at Santa Anita have not kept up with other Big tracks. We have seen barns already leave to test other waters in the last3 years. Cant see Santa Anita surviving on a reduced racing schedule much less the 5 and 6 horse race programs.

[airford1]

As a former Owner of Race horses at Santa Anita in the 1980's I do remember that when we were winning races the Vet bills went up. Just saying.

[cutchemist42]

Originally Posted by JeremyJet

This seems to be the case since some kind of whip restrictions are part of this. Pandering to the political climate in California.

They needed something to just give a breather and delay this getting to a ballot. Announcing these changes gives them back something to hang their hat on.

Acknowledging the organization that wants you out of existence no matter what though was just dumb to me...

[rtnwin]

Santa Anita’s only real mistake was the track maintenance during the period of extreme rain. The repeated sealing of the track was a mistake. I realize the quantity of rain in a short time period was almost unprecedented but anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of energy control and dissipation would have realized the potential for negative effects on the horses. However, they did it to please the horsemen and betting public, who always want a fast track.
I think they realize the mistake but are reluctant to publish and expose them to liability. Shutting down the track was the correct political move. However, the horsemen do not like their horses remaining idle and pushed for permission to train. The result was the breakdown of Princess Lili B on national television. Game over. Any arguments they just need to fix the track and move on are moot. Period. The track is probably fine now but the damage is done.
Santa Anita has no choice but to make a radical move in an attempt to defuse the outrage against racing. PETA and allies have the upper hand and it’s not all Santa Anita’s fault. Simply follow the nationwide trend against animals being used and arguably abused for our entertainment to see this was inevitable.
Arguments that the drug restrictions should have been phased in are hypocritical. The horseman have adamantly opposed previous efforts to limit race-day medication. As many have stated, arguments this affects your livelihood may be true but are irrelevant. If the public sees it as a choice between animal welfare and your ability to continue making a living in the perceived abuse of same, you will lose.
Many countries do not allow race-day medication and the horses do just fine. Yes, there may be a period of screening out horses that have become addicted to racing with Lasix or other medications but that is the price to be paid for years of relying on them. Some trainers may exaggerate the degree of horses returning bleeding when running without Lasix to prove their point. This will only play into the position that if a horse can’t race without drugs, it shouldn’t be racing at all. If enough claims of bleeding are noted then the conclusion will be horses should not be racing. It will not bring Lasix back but drive another nail in the coffin.
We are well past the “let’s be reasonable” arguments.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

This is just stupid.

"Here is our bandaid everybody, and when it doesn't work, you can't blame us for not trying."

Lasix and same day meds are about 58th on the real reasons list.

My wife and I were discussing the fatalities. She asked me my thoughts as to why there so many fatal breakdowns.
My first though was that over the last 25 years or so, the thoroughbred horse has had much of the stamina and strength bred out and replaced with breeding for speed.
I have no idea why this occurred. But these animals seem to be more prone to injury.
Horses race maybe 8 to 10 times per year. Stakes horses half that.
ON a typical racing program there might be as few as two races that are not sprints. BTW, as far as I am concerned a mile is not a route. Its an extended sprint.
I looked through some old programs. I can find zero races for older horses less than 6 furlongs.
Those 5.5 furlong races for older maidens and claimers are on every program. Back then, only two year olds went shorter than 6f.
These horses have no stamina. Stamina is strength. Strength means a solid core. Vertebrate animals with a solid core are durable.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Serious question- has the synthetic track mandate "created problems" at Golden Gate? Did it create any problems at Hollywood Park before it closed?



The mandate created some problems at Santa Anita because they couldn't figure out how to properly install a synthetic track there. The rest of them worked out OK. And California racing would honestly be in better shape now had the mandate been maintained and SA simply required to keep trying until they had an installation that worked.

SA weighed not hosting the Breeders Cup vs not hosting the Breeders Cup...
They saw the numbers and as a result , tore out the poly track. Which by the way was breaking down due to the heat and constant exposure to sunlight.
Poly simply does not work in certain climates.
My question is, if they( people in this business) believe ANY surface other than dirt is better and safer, why then did not SA management explore using another artificial surface?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thespaah

SA weighed not hosting the Breeders Cup vs not hosting the Breeders Cup...
They saw the numbers and as a result , tore out the poly track. Which by the way was breaking down due to the heat and constant exposure to sunlight.
Poly simply does not work in certain climates.
My question is, if they( people in this business) believe ANY surface other than dirt is better and safer, why then did not SA management explore using another artificial surface?

I know people keep saying this, but the BC has never ruled out synthetic tracks. That wasn't the reason SA went back. They went back because they spent over $10M on synthetic tracks and failed to figure out how to install one properly.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I know people keep saying this, but the BC has never ruled out synthetic tracks. That wasn't the reason SA went back. They went back because they spent over $10M on synthetic tracks and failed to figure out how to install one properly.

The BC at Santa Anita is exactly why they'll never go back to a synthetic track.

When the Classic comes in 2 slomos from across the pond for the EX, that will not be American racing.

Dirt. We are the dirt champions on this planet. We have the very best.

Could anybody imagine if 2 American bred horses ran 1-2 in the Arc? They'd never allow another American bred in the race.

[cutchemist42]

So now seeing it said on Twitter that they cant sell the property now as its designated a landmark. However, having your hand forced by government or outside forces allows an individual to recoup money on such a property.

I could see that being the endgame here.

I mean, peta has not brought down the other tracks this badly through the media, and Lord knows Los Al would have been an easy target.

Just let Santa close cause it's the big target everyone focuses on while allowing the other circuits to go on. As long as SA exists, it now acts as a catalyst to getting on a ballot and killing it for a whole state.