RIP to Mongolian Groom and CA Racing

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Most horses will bleed if they race long enough.

You might want to check with some world famous trainers, like Christiane “Criquette” Head about that. (and others).

“Racing is about natural selection. In the United States, there are stallions that shouldn't be stallions, but you never know because the performance was achieved with medication. It is seriously affecting the breed.”

Due to style of racing and breeding in Europe, writes Rarick, bleeding is less of an issue. If a horse does bleed it is handled by cutting out oats the night before a race and leaving half a bucket of water rather than a full bucket. If the horse has a more severe problem it is retired or sent to the United States to race...."

(bolding mine). But everyone already knows this. We are a landfill for bleeders, for horses who need crutches.

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...-s-and-europe/


Please show us the studies that "most horses bleed or will bleed if they race long enough". And please, give us a % from those studies.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

I think it's pretty clear in this thread why racing is slow to make changes.....a lot of bettors don't want to have to learn how to handicap a drug-free race.

I think it's the opposite. I don't know any bettors who can handicap drugs.

Esp. if they don't even know what drugs a horse has been given.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

of course it is, your the only one disputing the reason.

I disputed nothing regarding a human taking Lasix. In fact, I stated that there’s no legitimate purpose for a human athlete to take Lasix (though CJ apparently can find a few competitive athletes who are succeeding despite their health conditions).

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by clicknow

You might want to check with some world famous trainers, like Christiane “Criquette” Head about that. (and others).

“Racing is about natural selection. In the United States, there are stallions that shouldn't be stallions, but you never know because the performance was achieved with medication. It is seriously affecting the breed.”

Due to style of racing and breeding in Europe, writes Rarick, bleeding is less of an issue. If a horse does bleed it is handled by cutting out oats the night before a race and leaving half a bucket of water rather than a full bucket. If the horse has a more severe problem it is retired or sent to the United States to race...."

(bolding mine). But everyone already knows this. We are a landfill for bleeders, for horses who need crutches.

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...-s-and-europe/


Please show us the studies that "most horses bleed or will bleed if they race long enough". And please, give us a % from those studies.

There’s plenty out there if you want to Google. Here’s one for you, with some excerpts posted:

Perhaps the most widely recognized of all disorders affecting racehorses is “bleeding,” or exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH). We now know that most racehorses bleed at some time during their careers. In fact, many horses might bleed every time they undertake intense exercise, such as breezing and racing. We also know that bleeding can occur in situations other than flat racing. For example, EIPH has been detected in three-day eventers, steeplechasers, and polo ponies, among others. Bleeding has even been observed in draft horses pulling heavy loads. The common denominator is strenuous exercise.


In studies of Thoroughbreds and Standardbreds, where these horses were “scoped” (had their windpipes endoscopically examined) 60-90 minutes after racing, bleeding was detected in 50-60% of horses. In studies where the same horses were examined after three races, almost 90% bled on at least one occasion.

https://thehorse.com/16537/eiph-exer...ry-hemorrhage/


So the research shows that it’s a problem in the HORSE, those of all breeds and disciplines, not just Tbs.

But instead of treating them most humanely, with a drug that causes the horses to have no ill effects, doesn’t contribute to breakdowns, doesn’t mask illegal drugs, some just want to ban it for no good reason.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

In some places yes, not so in all. I'd argue that the subsidies keeping some tracks alive are hurting the ones that didn't initially need them.

100%

That's the consolidation argument I've been making forever.

If some medium sized track can't survive without casino subsidies but is getting them now, if it closed instead, would the handle vanish into thin air or would some (if not most) go to the remaining tracks?

If it goes to the remaining tracks, it puts the remaining tracks on firmer financial footing and less in need of subsidies. The more you consolidate, the healthier the remainder. (not to mention the horses at the closed track could move somewhere else and potentially increase field sizes there).

I don't even think it's an economic debate. It's a political one about how to distribute the money floating across states and about the jobs in racing that that would be lost every time a track closed. The flip side being, once you closed the track, that land is available for development and may actually add more jobs to the community and more revenue to the state.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

There’s plenty out there if you want to Google. Here’s one for you, with some excerpts posted:

Perhaps the most widely recognized of all disorders affecting racehorses is “bleeding,” or exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH). We now know that most racehorses bleed at some time during their careers. In fact, many horses might bleed every time they undertake intense exercise, such as breezing and racing. We also know that bleeding can occur in situations other than flat racing. For example, EIPH has been detected in three-day eventers, steeplechasers, and polo ponies, among others. Bleeding has even been observed in draft horses pulling heavy loads. The common denominator is strenuous exercise.


In studies of Thoroughbreds and Standardbreds, where these horses were “scoped” (had their windpipes endoscopically examined) 60-90 minutes after racing, bleeding was detected in 50-60% of horses. In studies where the same horses were examined after three races, almost 90% bled on at least one occasion.

https://thehorse.com/16537/eiph-exer...ry-hemorrhage/


So the research shows that it’s a problem in the HORSE, those of all breeds and disciplines, not just Tbs.

But instead of treating them most humanely, with a drug that causes the horses to have no ill effects, doesn’t contribute to breakdowns, doesn’t mask illegal drugs, some just want to ban it for no good reason.

Any idea why other countries have banned lasix and still race.?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

100%

That's the consolidation argument I've been making forever.

If some medium sized track can't survive without casino subsidies but is getting them now, if it closed instead, would the handle vanish into thin air or would some (if not most) go to the remaining tracks?

If it goes to the remaining tracks, it puts the remaining tracks on firmer financial footing and less in need of subsidies. The more you consolidate, the healthier the remainder. (not to mention the horses at the closed track could move somewhere else and potentially increase field sizes there).

I don't even think it's an economic debate. It's a political one about how to distribute the money floating across states and about the jobs in racing that that would be lost every time a track closed. The flip side being, once you closed the track, that land is available for development and may actually add more jobs to the community and more revenue to the state.

I think everyone knows that a more healthy racing would be shutting down every track which can’t stand on its own.

As for jobs, they’ll be found elsewhere (and as you said, in whatever replaces tracks). I don’t agree with subsidies for non-essential things, which horse racing is certainly not.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Any idea why other countries have banned lasix and still race.?

Because they’re willing to let their horses bleed?

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan;2538412[B

]I think everyone knows that a more healthy racing would be shutting down every track which can’t stand on its own.
[/B]
As for jobs, they’ll be found elsewhere (and as you said, in whatever replaces tracks). I don’t agree with subsidies for non-essential things, which horse racing is certainly not.

How do you tell those tracks we do not want you anymore.?

[cj]

Originally Posted by bob60566

How do you tell those tracks we do not want you anymore.?

Easy, take away the subsidies. They'll be gone soon after.

[airford1]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Because they’re willing to let their horses bleed?

as opposed to masking a illegal drug. The owners and trainer are the ones racing bleeders.

[airford1]

Originally Posted by bob60566

How do you tell those tracks we do not want you anymore.?

Lock on the door and a for sale sign. Really?

[Southbaygent]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

I’ll miss them dearly. My best turf scores have come in the downhill sprints.

Same here, loved it...did well handicapping it. Always enjoyed the San Juan Capistrano marathon that started at the top.

But if it’s bad for the horses I’m good with being done with it. Also, watched WAY too many horses “flinch” at the dirt track crossover. Made me flinch too.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by airford1

as opposed to masking a illegal drug. The owners and trainer are the ones racing bleeders.

Lasix doesn’t mask illegal drugs as is given in racing.

Next!

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Because they’re willing to let their horses bleed?

No they handle it GENTLY and with tincture of time