The NY Times Drops The Other Shoe

Patuxet · Postby **Patuxet** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:30 am

Read the comments at the end of the article. The handwriting's on the wall. It's Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin," time at the old ranchero, my friends.

As one among us chooses to sign off his posts here: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Unfortunately that famous Pogo quotation now seems particularly apt. Shame on us. Even with our inaction we're all complicit.

Casino Cash Fuels Use of Injured Horses at Racetracks
Large payouts to owners make it profitable for owners to field horoughbreds that are past their prime, sometimes with fatal results.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/us/ca ... 2_20120430

Graphics: One Horse, One Week of Injections
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... 2_20120430

A Horse's Rise and Fall
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... 2_20120430

Video
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... eductvideo

Slide Show
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012 ... oslideshow

Previous Articles in the Series http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/30/us/breakdown-horses-series.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2_20120430

Joltman · Postby **Joltman** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:41 am

What if a track simply wrote individual races for which Lasix was not permissible? (with state oversight adjusted accordingly?)

How many handicappers would like to see Lasix free races? I suspect they would as the suspicion of doping through Lasix would go away, so handle would go up. What track wouldn't want that?

jm

Sailor Kenshin · Postby **Sailor Kenshin** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:45 am

The NYT is simply on the side of those who want to destroy any and all private industry. They don't give a damn about the horses.

Crystal · Postby **Crystal** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:43 am

I don't even want to read the comments on the bottom of that page. Undoubtedly flooded by people who don't have any knowledge of horse racing beyond Pet a pony day at their local track..

If the horse that was getting all of those injections was allowed to enter a race, passed by the state vet in the barn, passed by the stewards and vet on track - then where does the blame really fall.

BenB · Postby **BenB** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:58 am

Iam having a part in a horse, as owner. Each trainer, who would advise me this kind of treatment. should be done within seconds.

When one says, I am loving my horses, retire them instead of acting as above mentioned.

Shergar · Postby **Shergar** » Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:44 pm

ct2346 · Postby **ct2346** » Tue May 01, 2012 10:13 am

Crystal wrote:I don't even want to read the comments on the bottom of that page. Undoubtedly flooded by people who don't have any knowledge of horse racing beyond Pet a pony day at their local track..

If the horse that was getting all of those injections was allowed to enter a race, passed by the state vet in the barn, passed by the stewards and vet on track - then where does the blame really fall.

The blame sits squarely with the trainer. There are certainly many causes of breakdowns and like events but as with everything else the key is patterns. Trainers are licensed professionals and their job is both to make money (when possible) and care for their horses. Trainers and the vets they choose to employ need better scrutiny but only in certain cases. Would propose that, as a start, any trainer whose entry is vanned off, breaks down, or for whatever reason DNFs, must undergo a hearing. That hearing consists of a review of vet bills along with the administering vet in front of both stewards and a state rep/vet. This "sunshine" alone may act as a bit of deterrent from entering sore. The idea of vets ("all charges authorized by trainer") standing in front of such an investigation also has appeal. If, as a result of the investigation, "days" are meted out - either to the vet or the trainer, so be it. The fact that only certain causes (DNFs etc.) can originate the investigation removes any concern for "appearances of singling out".

Granted - overextension to avoid DNF is a possible unwanted side effect.

Not perfect, but perhaps better than no scrutiny which is what we have now.

cewright · Postby **cewright** » Tue May 01, 2012 12:38 pm

ct2346 wrote:
Crystal wrote:I don't even want to read the comments on the bottom of that page. Undoubtedly flooded by people who don't have any knowledge of horse racing beyond Pet a pony day at their local track..

If the horse that was getting all of those injections was allowed to enter a race, passed by the state vet in the barn, passed by the stewards and vet on track - then where does the blame really fall.

The blame sits squarely with the trainer. There are certainly many causes of breakdowns and like events but as with everything else the key is patterns. Trainers are licensed professionals and their job is both to make money (when possible) and care for their horses. Trainers and the vets they choose to employ need better scrutiny but only in certain cases. Would propose that, as a start, any trainer whose entry is vanned off, breaks down, or for whatever reason DNFs, must undergo a hearing. That hearing consists of a review of vet bills along with the administering vet in front of both stewards and a state rep/vet. This "sunshine" alone may act as a bit of deterrent from entering sore. The idea of vets ("all charges authorized by trainer") standing in front of such an investigation also has appeal. If, as a result of the investigation, "days" are meted out - either to the vet or the trainer, so be it. The fact that only certain causes (DNFs etc.) can originate the investigation removes any concern for "appearances of singling out".

Granted - overextension to avoid DNF is a possible unwanted side effect.

Not perfect, but perhaps better than no scrutiny which is what we have now.

I totally disagree with your premise about holding only the trainer and vet responsible. Both the vet and the trainer are hired by the owner! It is the owners responsibility to take responsibility for his agents/employees. Until the owners feel the heat they will continue to shop for the trainer/vet that best pushes the limits or is smart enough not to get caught. I do like the idea of holding a postmortem review for all breakdowns.

Chuck

Patuxet · Postby **Patuxet** » Wed May 02, 2012 8:22 am

"BINGO!", Chuck.

Blue feather · Postby **Blue feather** » Wed May 02, 2012 8:58 am

As usual in todays society, the blame game is alive and well. Their is plenty of blame to go around concerning the state of racing. Trainers who feel they must push the line in order to compete, Vets who are trying to satisfing the demands of trainers, Owners, understanding the financial difficulty's of racing, who are typically at arms length as far as interacting with their horses thus making it easier to urge trainers to push the ethical line without regard to the horses well being , the fragmentation of racings respective decision making bodies. Our mere participation in any facet of the industry inherently adheres us to a certain level of responsibility.
Energy wasted in pointing fingers is energy taken away from possible soluitions.

ct2346 · Postby **ct2346** » Wed May 02, 2012 9:28 am

Chuck - you make a good point. The owner could equally be subject to days as a result of such a hearing. What that might yield is less "arms length" involvement on owners' parts. I know that in a lot of cases I do not know everything that has been going on with a particular horse until the end of the month when a vet bill arrives. I do know that often the "treatments/events" on that bill were not authorized by me. If I had potential scrutiny for those treatments, you could bet that the trainer would not be allowed to do anything without checking with me first. Perhaps thats a better way to go...although I'll bet a lot of trainers wouldn't like that level of owner involvement either.

Regardless, if all three - Trainer, Vet and Owner were subject to review after any breakdown, I could go for that.