O'neil headed to Dubai & Oaklawn

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by clicknow

OTOH, if you are racing known *bleeders*, you can't just take them off lasix. Therein lies the problem. They shouldn't be ON the track in the first place. Hong Kong rates them and if you have a higher level bleeder they just aren't seen as fit to be *race horses*....other careers for them instead.

I'm obviously not a vet or trainer, but I know for certain there are legal ways for treating bleeders other than Lasix. From what I'be been told, Lasix is not necessarily even the best approach.

I'm pretty sure they have bleeders in Europe. They are just treated differently.

From what I've been told, Germany is really tough on bleeders.

[horsefan2019]

Originally Posted by jay68802

The trainers and connections are basically saying that we can't run with these new drug rules. Just proving what we, as handicappers, have suspected all along. Sad. Instead of acknowledging the problems they are facing, they are running away. As handicappers, we need to keep supporting Santa Anita and any other track that follows there leadership.

I believe some of the tracks like Oaklawn would probably benefit since they don't belong to the group of tracks that were behind the forming of the safety coalition. Some of the smaller tracks would probably benefit as well. Until all the race tracks in the US adapt the same set of rules, you will end up with differing rules between them, some of them changing as the meets shift from one venue to another.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

I believe some of the tracks like Oaklawn would probably benefit since they don't belong to the group of tracks that were behind the forming of the safety coalition. Some of the smaller tracks would probably benefit as well. Until all the race tracks in the US adapt the same set of rules, you will end up with differing rules between them, some of them changing as the meets shift from one venue to another.

I would state it in stronger terms than that. There is a significant probability that large segments of the industry deliberately keep their rules liberal in an attempt to attract the big Southern California stables, and that this puts Santa Anita out of business.

Although Kentucky's signaling that they are going to adopt the Lasix rule decreased the probability of this somewhat.

[The_Turf_Monster]

What's his plan for when OP's 'boutique' dirt meet ends in April?

[Cholly]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

What's his plan for when OP's 'boutique' dirt meet ends in April?

What's his plan for when the Owners who are paying the bills decide they don't want to travel from sunny Southern California to freezing ass cold Arkansas to watch their horses run?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Cholly

What's his plan for when the Owners who are paying the bills decide they don't want to travel from sunny Southern California to freezing ass cold Arkansas to watch their horses run?

LOL, it isn't like Arkansas is in North Dakota. It can be cold the first month, not so much after that.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

(Churchill's just announced plan to ban 2 year old Lasix is a good sign though.)

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I would state it in stronger terms than that. There is a significant probability that large segments of the industry deliberately keep their rules liberal in an attempt to attract the big Southern California stables, and that this puts Santa Anita out of business.

Although Kentucky's signaling that they are going to adopt the Lasix rule decreased the probability of this somewhat.

Oaklawn Park is among the coalition of 20 racetracks and horse racing organizations to have announced an incremental plan to ban the use of the Lasix. (Coalition racetracks = all tracks owned or operated by Churchill Downs Inc., the New York Racing Association and The Stronach Group as well as Del Mar, Keeneland, Lone Star Park, Remington Park, Los Alamitos Racecourse (Thoroughbred meets), Oaklawn Park, and Tampa Bay Downs.)



A ban on race-day use of Lasix for 2-year-old horses will begin in 2020. Then a race-day ban that extends to all stakes races in 2021, which includes all Triple Crown races and Kentucky Derby preps.

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...hs/3505879002/

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/...-on-lasix-201/

Since OP doesn't have 2 year old racing, not sure how this would be different than Churchill's Lasix ban?

The coalition is like 86% of all U.S. tracks.....so the question will come down to these horseman going to the *other* 14% of tracks that have, as you note, liberal policies on this........and I highly doubt any tracks in that 14% range are the kind that can put SA out of biz.

[clicknow]

As for "boutique" meets, I know I will get tomatoes thrown at me for this, but I don't think ANY track should be running year round w/out a few months off.

Down there in Loiusiana, where you can just STAND in your driveway w/out moving and be dripping sweat.......yes, even after the sun goes down......summer racing? And winter racing during the coldest months anyplace north of the Mason Dixon line has always seemed absurd to me.

At least close down for a month or two?

Honestly, most race fans would not want to stand outside at the rail at Oaklawn in July or August.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by clicknow

As for "boutique" meets, I know I will get tomatoes thrown at me for this, but I don't think ANY track should be running year round w/out a few months off.

I actually think year round racing is an underrated possible factor in the fragility of racehorses. It used to be that horses often got turned out for the winter. There wasn't a lot of late fall racing, and the winter racing that took place mostly took place in the Sun Belt at a handful of tracks.

Obviously, gamblers love year round racing, and in an era where most handle comes from simulcasting and account wagering, it's a lot easier to make money putting it on than it was in the days when you had to get the fans to brave bad weather and come to the racetrack.

But having a natural rest period for a lot of horses is probably good for them. They still do in Europe.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Oaklawn Park is among the coalition of 20 racetracks and horse racing organizations to have announced an incremental plan to ban the use of the Lasix. (Coalition racetracks = all tracks owned or operated by Churchill Downs Inc., the New York Racing Association and The Stronach Group as well as Del Mar, Keeneland, Lone Star Park, Remington Park, Los Alamitos Racecourse (Thoroughbred meets), Oaklawn Park, and Tampa Bay Downs.)



A ban on race-day use of Lasix for 2-year-old horses will begin in 2020. Then a race-day ban that extends to all stakes races in 2021, which includes all Triple Crown races and Kentucky Derby preps.

https://www.courier-journal.com/stor...hs/3505879002/

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/...-on-lasix-201/

Since OP doesn't have 2 year old racing, not sure how this would be different than Churchill's Lasix ban?

The coalition is like 86% of all U.S. tracks.....so the question will come down to these horseman going to the *other* 14% of tracks that have, as you note, liberal policies on this........and I highly doubt any tracks in that 14% range are the kind that can put SA out of biz.

I agree with this, but it has to stick. Previous Lasix bans haven't stuck.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by cj

LOL, it isn't like Arkansas is in North Dakota. It can be cold the first month, not so much after that.

A better question would be will owners who live in California want to own race horses if they cannot see their horses except on TV for the most part?

[cj]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

A better question would be will owners who live in California want to own race horses if they cannot see their horses except on TV for the most part?

That is the real question. They might be willing to do it given the disparity in the cost of doing business and the purses between SoCal and Oaklawn.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by cj

That is the real question. They might be willing to do it given the disparity in the cost of doing business and the purses between SoCal and Oaklawn.

I wouldnt spent the money personally if I could not see my horses run. Its one thing to ship, or maybe even have multiple stables, but essentially to be part of a sport as an absentee owner seems like a stretch.

[cj]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I wouldnt spent the money personally if I could not see my horses run. Its one thing to ship, or maybe even have multiple stables, but essentially to be part of a sport as an absentee owner seems like a stretch.

I don't disagree we'd see some of that, but we have plenty absentee owners already and if you are winning money that would make it easier to handle.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't disagree we'd see some of that, but we have plenty absentee owners already and if you are winning money that would make it easier to handle.

Do you think Californians would ban horse racing yet allow betting on the banned sport in what would be the most hypocritical move ever so they continue to collect the tax revenue?