BC officials pushing for raceday medication ban - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

gm10 · 09-02-2012, 07:50 AM

Good on them ...

"USA: Breeders' Cup officials have underlined their determination to move towards banning all raceday medication by revealing that Santa Anita's ability willingness to host a Lasix-free event in 2013 was a major factor in the California track being granted the event for a second year running.

Only Santa Anita of the major-league tracks in the running to host the Breeders' Cup was able to make the guarantee regarding the potential prohibition of the anti-bleeding medication Furosemide, more commonly known by its former trade name Lasix."

http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd?event_id=205915

Fager Fan · 09-02-2012, 10:40 AM

The BC needs to do what it's supposed to do, which is promote Tb racing in the U.S. through a day (now 2 days) of championship calibre racing.

It screwed up the even for 2 years with its determination that US racing should switch from dirt to synthetics, forcing our dirt horses to run over the stuff, with non-championship results as the result. Now it wants to force non raceday use of meds so will require that to be done. The effects of this won't likely be as disastrous, but them trying to force racing to go this way or that way is grating. They should stick to doing their job.

forced89 · 09-02-2012, 10:46 AM

Agree. The Breeders Cup should not be trying to change the way we race in the US. They should stick to promoting their event. I'm not saying change should (or should not) come to the ways we do things, just that the BC should not be the vehicle to create change.

Sysonby · 09-02-2012, 11:34 AM

I'm in favour of anything that moves us toward the European and Japanese model of no medications and much lower rates of catastrophic breakdowns. Good for the BC!

Fager Fan · 09-02-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sysonby

I'm in favour of anything that moves us toward the European and Japanese model of no medications and much lower rates of catastrophic breakdowns. Good for the BC!

Meaning we should run horses 5 or 6 times a year, all on grass, over a course used for a week a time or two a year?

There's no indication that raceday meds have anything to do with breakdowns.

Sysonby · 09-02-2012, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Meaning we should run horses 5 or 6 times a year, all on grass, over a course used for a week a time or two a year?

There's no indication that raceday meds have anything to do with breakdowns.

Wrong.

http://www.hsvma.org/racehorse_advoc...ay_medications

http://sidgustafson.blogspot.ca/2012...out-lasix.html

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/final...ck-arthur.aspx

There's more but I have other stuff I need to do.

Sysonby · 09-02-2012, 03:12 PM

One more, couldn't resist.

http://www.horsefund.org/the-chemical-horse-part-1.php

Tom · 09-02-2012, 06:16 PM

Without lasix, the BC will be a complete joke and waste of time.
They should take away the graded status of everyone of them if they do.

Why not mandate that they all wear blinkers while we're at it.
Nonsense.

Getting rid of lasix is one thing, this is moronic.

Tom · 09-02-2012, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Meaning we should run horses 5 or 6 times a year, all on grass, over a course used for a week a time or two a year?

There's no indication that raceday meds have anything to do with breakdowns.

One cannot compare racing here and there - they are two widely different games. Your point is excellent.

Fager Fan · 09-02-2012, 06:19 PM

You really think Bute explains the difference between the breakdown rate in Europe and here? Isn't their breakdown rate on turf about equal to ours on turf?

dilanesp · 09-03-2012, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forced89

Agree. The Breeders Cup should not be trying to change the way we race in the US. They should stick to promoting their event. I'm not saying change should (or should not) come to the ways we do things, just that the BC should not be the vehicle to create change.

The Breeders' Cup is a private event and they can set any rules of eligibility they wish. (And they had the right to run on synthetics too).

DeltaLover · 09-03-2012, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom

One cannot compare racing here and there - they are two widely different games. Your point is excellent.

Can you please explain why they are so different?

gm10 · 09-03-2012, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

You really think Bute explains the difference between the breakdown rate in Europe and here? Isn't their breakdown rate on turf about equal to ours on turf?

It's quite a bit higher ... 1.53 per 1000 starts vs 0.6 per 1000 starts.

Fager Fan · 09-03-2012, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gm10

It's quite a bit higher ... 1.53 per 1000 starts vs 0.6 per 1000 starts.

What source are you looking at? Now that I'm looking and not going off memory, I'm finding quite varied breakdown rates in Europe, from your .6 up to 2.5 in Europe.

I'm not against banning bute on raceday, I just don't think that it's the cause of the increased breakdown rate in U.S. over Europe. Running over turf is inarguably safer. But we can also add courses that are in top condition, not chewed up from frequent use, and racing and training in varied directions with slight bends instead of the constant left-hand running around turns we have here. I'd like to see accidents separated out in the stats too - two horses dying after one breaks down and the other falls over it, these are two very different reasons for breaking down.

We sure don't get much information from the Injury Reporting Project, are we? A couple of mostly meaningless reports in 4 or 5 years.

Sysonby · 09-03-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

What source are you looking at? Now that I'm looking and not going off memory, I'm finding quite varied breakdown rates in Europe, from your .6 up to 2.5 in Europe.

I'm not against banning bute on raceday, I just don't think that it's the cause of the increased breakdown rate in U.S. over Europe. Running over turf is inarguably safer. But we can also add courses that are in top condition, not chewed up from frequent use, and racing and training in varied directions with slight bends instead of the constant left-hand running around turns we have here. I'd like to see accidents separated out in the stats too - two horses dying after one breaks down and the other falls over it, these are two very different reasons for breaking down.

We sure don't get much information from the Injury Reporting Project, are we? A couple of mostly meaningless reports in 4 or 5 years.

True, track condition is very important, where it be dirt, synthetic or turf.