Stronach Group announces ban on race day meds

[chadk66]

Ingesting dirt with poly could in now way be good for a horse

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

That's all I was referring to.

I also remember the moaning and gnashing of teeth by opinion-makers, including Andy Beyer, that the elimination of biases would result in more predictability, lower win payoffs, and a move downwards towards harness racing levels of interest.

Wagering has dropped from $15 billion to $10 billion a year, and favorites are winning near 40% nationwide. What part of that was wrong?

[Hosshead]

Originally Posted by pandy

The thing is, Del Mar and Santa Anita had a lot of fatal breakdowns years ago, which is why the state mandated the change to synthetic tracks (which reduced the number of fatal breakdowns). So, I'm not saying that you're wrong, but this isn't something that developed just this winter. Santa Anita and Del Mar have had this problem, just as bad, in the past. Which is why I think that you can make a case that drugs do factor into it. Del Mar was a killing grounds in two different meets.

Synthetic is not the answer.
Here is more on how Del Mar turned it around.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...306-story.html

But unfortunately Santa Anita doesn't want to spend the $ on re doing the track itself.
So we get all the excuses they can think of, ...except the big ticket item.

____

[pandy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I have a particular take on soft tissue injuries, as a litigation lawyer.

In human accidents, soft tissue injuries are where a vast number of fraudulent claims are made. You can't prove anything. If the victim tells a doctor he or she hurts there, and the doctor puts a brace on, boom, you have a soft tissue injury and a $25,000 or more claim.

There were a lot of trainers who hated synthetic tracks, for their own reasons. And, honestly-- and I am going to be very nasty to them-- they really didn't care that much about the fatality rate on dirt, at least in the sense that they would prefer a world where they understand the surface and speed figures work and their horses are bred to run on the surface, to a world where they are dealing with something new and unpredictable, even if that new and unpredictable surface is far safer.

There's no reason we should particularly credit the honesty of horsemen claiming soft tissue injuries. At any rate, even if you did, I'd rather have a racetrack full of treatable soft tissue injuries than a ton of fatal breakdowns. It's a no brainer.

I agree, I think some trainers were using "soft tissue injuries" as an excuse because they just wanted to run on dirt. Bob Baffert made it very clear that he didn't like synthetic tracks and it had nothing to do with injuries, he just likes fast and hard tracks for his horses because he has speed horses that are bred for dirt and speed.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by Hosshead

Synthetic is not the answer.
Here is more on how Del Mar turned it around.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...306-story.html

But unfortunately Santa Anita doesn't want to spend the $ on re doing the track itself.
So we get all the excuses they can think of, ...except the big ticket item.

____

Quoting from the article, here is a summary of DelMar's suggestions:

●the full renovation of the track surface;
●fewer racing days;
●fewer horses housed and training at the track;
●three breaks (instead of two) in morning training for the track to be refreshed; and
●after those breaks, giving priority to horses running a full workout to run along the rail.
●veterinarians to identify horses that are unfit to race. That includes examining a horse’s past race and training performance.

I listed them to get your opinion about each, if you have any.

Concerning the last, half the breakdowns occurred in training, do track vets ever examine horses before workouts? Has one ever scratched a horse from a workout?

Also, seems that most of these suggestions would cut into SA's bottom line.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Redboard

Quoting from the article, here is a summary of DelMar's suggestions:

●the full renovation of the track surface;
●fewer racing days;
●fewer horses housed and training at the track;
●three breaks (instead of two) in morning training for the track to be refreshed; and
●after those breaks, giving priority to horses running a full workout to run along the rail.
●veterinarians to identify horses that are unfit to race. That includes examining a horse’s past race and training performance.

I listed them to get your opinion about each, if you have any.

Concerning the last, half the breakdowns occurred in training, do track vets ever examine horses before workouts? Has one ever scratched a horse from a workout?

Also, seems that most of these suggestions would cut into SA's bottom line.

It's worth noting as well that there's no statistical proof that Del Mar's dirt is as safe as a synthetic track. It's a small sample size.

[Rex Phinney]

Originally Posted by clicknow

yes, how awful to make horse trainers know and learn how to manage EIPH in racehorses, like the rest of the world is able to do.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong one way or another. I was pointing out that horsemen would never stand for a change on the fly regarding their Lasix.


And how did it work out? Racing will resume WITH Lasix.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Rex Phinney

I'm not saying it's right or wrong one way or another. I was pointing out that horsemen would never stand for a change on the fly regarding their Lasix.


And how did it work out? Racing will resume WITH Lasix.

Definitely the horsemen will do everything they can to push back on something like this if it is tried by a track.

The real question is whether the legislature or the voters will ever get involved.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by Rex Phinney

I'm not saying it's right or wrong one way or another. I was pointing out that horsemen would never stand for a change on the fly regarding their Lasix.


And how did it work out? Racing will resume WITH Lasix.

So there is no change in the lasix dosage when racing resumes is that correct.?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by bob60566

So there is no change in the lasix dosage when racing resumes is that correct.?

They took a haircut on dosing, but just watch, they will get the 2018 foals restriction thrown out before it takes effect....

[bob60566]

Lasix will still be permitted but at a maximum of 50 percent of the current levels. If what people say Lasix is a masking for other illegal drugs on raceday, I wonder how the reduced dose will affect some trainers.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Lasix will still be permitted but at a maximum of 50 percent of the current levels. If what people say Lasix is a masking for other illegal drugs on raceday, I wonder how the reduced dose will affect some trainers.

with today's testing abilities it's very unlikely lasix masks many if any drugs anymore.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by chadk66

with today's testing abilities it's very unlikely lasix masks many if any drugs anymore.

I don't buy that at all. If that were the case, WADA and the Olympics would permit the drug.

[Rex Phinney]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Lasix will still be permitted but at a maximum of 50 percent of the current levels. If what people say Lasix is a masking for other illegal drugs on raceday, I wonder how the reduced dose will affect some trainers.

I don't pretend to be smart enough to know how the dosage affects the masking properties. But I bet the trainers are. Just a thought.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't buy that at all. If that were the case, WADA and the Olympics would permit the drug.

WADA is extremely over protective. You don't have to buy it.