NYRA "safety steps" - Page 5 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Robert Fischer · 01-17-2015, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadk66

If the track vet was doing his/her job senseless rules like this wouldn't have to be put in place. But what would completely nullify any inclining for a rule like this would be a national drug policy with some serious teeth.

drugs are hard to regulate.

Even in the Olympics, everyone cheats.

It's a hard topic to discuss, because people believe what it says on TV.

Drug rules are important, and the best rules and testing can prevent stuff that harms the animal and provides an unfair advantage or disadvantage.

It's really really complicated. Sometimes banning 1 drug 'forces' the cheaters to use a drug that is less healthy in order to beat the testing change.
Sometimes banning another drug causes an expensive undetectable substitute where instead of having 8 out of 10 trainers cheating,
only 3 out of 10 who really invest into cheating and have the biggest cheating budget, then get a huge advantage...
Many many other complications...

It's a tough topic flat out. It's a topic that the public is grossly misinformed about. Very complicated.

chadk66 · 01-17-2015, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

That's a tricky call, because if the jock says he or she is "good to go" why would the vet override them?

What's your experience with vets and scratching horses that the jock said they were willing to ride?

the vet's job isn't to be persuaded by a jockey. it's not hard to see a lame horse when your a vet and look at them every day. and these guys make notes on how some of these horses travel so they can compare what they've seen in the past. there are jocks that get very few mounts that will ride a three legged horse just to try and get on more horses. And honestly, I've had some riders, both jocks and exercise riders that can't tell when a horse is traveling off.

thespaah · 01-17-2015, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Reading my mind. One step further. What happens when that low performing jock is 20 back in the stretch on a horse that is obviously not right, and he damn sure doesn't want to finish 25 behind? Where does his mind go? Ease? Go to the whip?

There has to be a better way to determine a poor performance.

I agree. If a jock has to urge a spent horse just get within 25 lengths of the winner at the line, causing am injury or breakdown, the effect of the mandate is reversed...
An arbitrary "25 length rule" used solely as a determining factor for a poor performance is not good enough.

chadk66 · 01-17-2015, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

drugs are hard to regulate.

Even in the Olympics, everyone cheats.

It's a hard topic to discuss, because people believe what it says on TV.

Drug rules are important, and the best rules and testing can prevent stuff that harms the animal and provides an unfair advantage or disadvantage.

It's really really complicated. Sometimes banning 1 drug 'forces' the cheaters to use a drug that is less healthy in order to beat the testing change.
Sometimes banning another drug causes an expensive undetectable substitute where instead of having 8 out of 10 trainers cheating,
only 3 out of 10 who really invest into cheating and have the biggest cheating budget, then get a huge advantage...
Many many other complications...

It's a tough topic flat out. It's a topic that the public is grossly misinformed about. Very complicated.

then by all means let's just scrap all drug rules and testing since trainers will get around them anyway. It would save the industry a pile of money and all the handicappers will be working on a level playing field

thespaah · 01-17-2015, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamboguy

are these rules just for Aqueduct or for all 3 tracks?

I read "At Aqueduct until further notice"...

Robert Fischer · 01-17-2015, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

...
Drug rules are important, and the best rules and testing can prevent stuff that harms the animal and provides an unfair advantage or disadvantage.
...
Very complicated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadk66

then by all means let's just scrap all drug rules and testing since trainers will get around them anyway. It would save the industry a pile of money and all the handicappers will be working on a level playing field

.

thespaah · 01-17-2015, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taxicab

How about the Elephant in the room.....

https://www.thoroughbredrulings.com/...learsearch=YES

Here what bugs me about this.....This guy gets fine after fine. Has shelled out tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Yet, he keeps up doping his horses.
Apparently, the fines are of little consequence compared to the purse percentage he receives.
IMO, each positive for a banned substance should on the first offense be accompanied by a fine equal to the dollar amount paid to that trainer. With a minimum fine of $1000. The next violation, the fines double. The next is a suspension of not less than 14 RACING days.....The next a one year revocation of license to be recognized by ALL racing jurisdictions in North America. The next, permanent revocation of all licenses( Trainer, owner)
Yes to some this may seem draconian, but as long as we have chemists and not trainers, the game is going to be looked upon as one having little credibility.
Maybe it's time to have state legislatures look into deeming these drugs "controlled substances" and as such, possession or use of them by all except licensed veterinary personnel, be deemed a felony.

chadk66 · 01-17-2015, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thespaah

Here what bugs me about this.....This guy gets fine after fine. Has shelled out tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Yet, he keeps up doping his horses.
Apparently, the fines are of little consequence compared to the purse percentage he receives.
IMO, each positive for a banned substance should on the first offense be accompanied by a fine equal to the dollar amount paid to that trainer. With a minimum fine of $1000. The next violation, the fines double. The next is a suspension of not less than 14 RACING days.....The next a one year revocation of license to be recognized by ALL racing jurisdictions in North America. The next, permanent revocation of all licenses( Trainer, owner)
Yes to some this may seem draconian, but as long as we have chemists and not trainers, the game is going to be looked upon as one having little credibility.
Maybe it's time to have state legislatures look into deeming these drugs "controlled substances" and as such, possession or use of them by all except licensed veterinary personnel, be deemed a felony.

not only that he is probably cashing in big time at the window. Should be three strikes and your out.

JustRalph · 01-17-2015, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadk66

not only that he is probably cashing in big time at the window. Should be three strikes and your out.

This is the part that is invisible to "us"

I guarantee some of these guys are cleaning up. I stood in line behind a famous trainer at Keeneland one day. He had a horse in a race a half hour from when we were in line. I watched him drop several hundred dollar bills on the clerk. I asked the clerk who he bet (I was about 3 behind him) the clerk said he couldn't even remember, he just hears numbers (made sense)

Of course I looked at the horse in the next race. I also looked at my software and saw that the trainer had about 5 horses running that day. I couldn't decipher who he might be betting. Of course a half hour later his horse wins at 11-1 and the tri and super were huge. I'm guessing he cleaned up.

This doesn't count their family members betting online etc. I can only assume this happens everywhere.

I flat asked Cot Campbell if I should bet his horse once. he was holding court at the top of a staircase at Keeneland. He looked right at me and said he didn't bet the horse. Of course he paid $90 bucks to win an hour later

Tom · 01-17-2015, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Oscar was before my time.....

Oscar once claimed a horse in the first race, who finished 30 lengths behind, and raced him back int he 8th race. 3-5, won.

mountainman · 01-18-2015, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom

Oscar once claimed a horse in the first race, who finished 30 lengths behind, and raced him back int he 8th race. 3-5, won.

Yes. Quickly wormed the horse, had his teeth done, put him on a good feeding program, cleaned his sheath,,gave him a goat..etc..etc....

jross0108 · 01-18-2015, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

There's nothing wrong with bringing a horse back after less than 14-16 days. (Well now there is, due to it being a rule) I think you had the right intentions and feelings, but it would be very easy to read your post and come away with the idea that running horses back on short rest is somehow unethical or inherently bad. That simply isn't true. I don't mean to defend the specific barn you bring up, but details bother me. I'm a nerd. We could find a ton of horses brought back <14 days. The vast vast majority would be ethical. The unethical ones would be due to lousy creepy trainers whose quick turnarounds were part of a comprehensive unethical process.

I'm not saying that running a horse back in less than 14 days is unethical or bad. Many trainers have shown success doing this but the barn that I mentioned hasn't shown success in doing this with any of their horses. I could see where a horse has been on a layoff for 2 months or so and after the first race off a layoff they decide to run the horse back in 10 days and the horse wins. But this barn routinely runs horses off less than 14 day layoffs with no success. At that point I don't see how they could say that what they are doing is good for the horse. It's hard for me to believe that running a horse 26 times over the course of a year (Front Cover Dream),with the longest layoff being 42 days, is good for a race horse.

Robert Goren · 01-18-2015, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thespaah

I agree. If a jock has to urge a spent horse just get within 25 lengths of the winner at the line, causing am injury or breakdown, the effect of the mandate is reversed...
An arbitrary "25 length rule" used solely as a determining factor for a poor performance is not good enough.

We are not talking 10 lengths here. 25 lengths is a long way. It is not like there is an unreasonable standard to get reinstated either. a 53 half is pretty easily meant by even half-way sound horses. Sound horses do get beat by 25 lengths sometimes when they are entered way over their heads or they run into a "buzzsaw", the WO rule corrects those cases easily. I don't see a problem with the rule.

JustRalph · 01-18-2015, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

We are not talking 10 lengths here. 25 lengths is a long way. It is not like there is an unreasonable standard to get reinstated either. a 53 half is pretty easily meant by even half-way sound horses. Sound horses do get beat by 25 lengths sometimes when they are entered way over their heads or they run into a "buzzsaw", the WO rule corrects those cases easily. I don't see a problem with the rule.

I don't think the workout rule corrects anything.............. especially a 25 L loss.

Lots of PR in these new rules........very little actual fixes for anything. The claiming price change will do more than anything

MadWorld · 01-18-2015, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

That's a tricky call, because if the jock says he or she is "good to go" why would the vet override them?

If you see a jockey ride a horse you bet on as if he didn't care about trying for a 3rd or 4th placing, would you accept whatever his explanation was for a perceived non effort? Or would you question it?