NYT: Drugs & I Want Revenge

[Buckpasser]

October 6, 2009

Lawsuit Sheds Light on Use of Legal Medications in Horses
By JOE DRAPE

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/sports/06horse.html

Five months after the Kentucky Derby favorite I Want Revenge was scratched the morning of the race with a bad ankle, his owners are embroiled in a lawsuit that has exposed the fault lines of administering legal drugs to America’s thoroughbreds.

IEAH Stables, which bought 50 percent of the horse in March, asserts that I Want Revenge was ailing as early as April 7 and that the co-owner David Lanzman, who managed the colt’s racing activities, failed to disclose the injuries to IEAH. Lawyers for Lanzman deny the charge and say an injury to a ligament in I Want Revenge’s right front ankle was discovered for the first time on the day of the Derby.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/sp...r=1&ref=sports

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Joe Drape

• There is a growing concern within the veterinary community that overmedication — with drugs like corticosteroids, anti-inflammatories that can have dangerous consequences — and lax oversight are part of the reason the United States has the world’s worst mortality rate for thoroughbreds.
  
  
• In America, racehorse fatalities have occurred at the rate of 1.47 per 1,000 starts for synthetic surfaces, and 2.03 per 1,000 starts for dirt tracks, said Mary Scollay, the equine medical director for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, who conducts research for the Jockey Club.
  
  
• In England, the average risk of fatality is much lower, from 0.8 to 0.9 per 1,000 starts. In Victoria, Australia, studies have reported the risk of fatality from 1989 to 2004 at 0.44 per 1,000 starts.

Interesting piece.. Pretty irresponsible and disingenuous of Drape to include these statistics and assert that the U.S. has the "worst mortality rate" without explaining to a largely ignorant readership that the majority of American (main track) racing is very different than European and Australian (turf) racing.

[randallscott35]

Nice mug on Lanzman, would that face lie?

No lasix. Bleeders out.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Interesting piece.. Pretty irresponsible and disingenuous of Drape to include these statistics and assert that the U.S. has the "worst mortality rate" without explaining to a largely ignorant readership that the majority of American (main track) racing is very different than European and Australian (turf) racing.

Thank you for bringing that up- that was the first thing I thought when I read the statistics- that he was clear to distinguish between synthetic and dirt fatality statistics in the US, but then lumped everything in Europe into one statistic.

Are turf fatality statistics for US tracks compiled and released anywhere?

Though I did find it very interesting that Northrop felt the owners deserved more transparency about treatments and medication an animal is getting, but the betting public doesn't. As the lolcats would say, dood, srsly?

[VOL JACK]

IEAH, Lanzman, Jeff Mullett, and Dicky Dutrow......what a great team.

[gamblin4ever]

I don't know much about the inner workings of horse racing (ownership,training). But,it sounds as if IEAH made a bad investment, purchased in March and horse starts ailing in April. The vets make it sound like a normal day leading up to the race with the work that was done on him.
Rules should be in place for horses running clean on race day. No meds in the horses system at all. If found in system fines,penalties and/or suspensions enforced. Please advise if i'm missing something.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gamblin4ever

I don't know much about the inner workings of horse racing (ownership,training). But,it sounds as if IEAH made a bad investment, purchased in March and horse starts ailing in April. The vets make it sound like a normal day leading up to the race with the work that was done on him.
Rules should be in place for horses running clean on race day. No meds in the horses system at all. If found in system fines,penalties and/or suspensions enforced. Please advise if i'm missing something.

Define clean. No meds in a horses system? Define no meds. What levels? What limits? It just isnt that simple.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Thank you for bringing that up- that was the first thing I thought when I read the statistics- that he was clear to distinguish between synthetic and dirt fatality statistics in the US, but then lumped everything in Europe into one statistic.

Are turf fatality statistics for US tracks compiled and released anywhere?

Though I did find it very interesting that Northrop felt the owners deserved more transparency about treatments and medication an animal is getting, but the betting public doesn't. As the lolcats would say, dood, srsly?

I doubt the betting public would have any clue what to do with the information or how you would control the validity of the information in the first place? Wouldnt the ability to further abuse the system be greater by allowing trainers/owners/vets to create a shadow of a doubt on claiming horses by taking a bunch of xrays and injecting a bunch of things before a horse dropping in class runs, even if wasnt done or needed? How would you police the vets to insure that they were indeed doing the work on the horse listed?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I doubt the betting public would have any clue what to do with the information or how you would control the validity of the information in the first place? Wouldnt the ability to further abuse the system be greater by allowing trainers/owners/vets to create a shadow of a doubt on claiming horses by taking a bunch of xrays and injecting a bunch of things before a horse dropping in class runs, even if wasnt done or needed? How would you police the vets to insure that they were indeed doing the work on the horse listed?

I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.

Assuming that all this information deserves to be made public (a point that I don't concede), where would you put all this information? If we were to include a horse's vet records in the PPs, the DRF would probably cost $100. Also, a lot of the meds are given 24-48 hours before the race, so how would that disclosure work?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.

I am not sure I agree that this should be public information. Does the NFL tell you what treatments or shots the players got each week? Hell they outright lie on a required injury list all the time. I understand that with people there are privacy issues but honestly I dont think that opening up vet records to the public will do anything but create more controversy where there isnt anything controversial. Not to mention who exactly is going to collect and disseminate the records? People who bet horseraces always feel slighted but when you compare the amount of info available now as compared to what was available in the past there is no comparison. In my other post what I was saying is that there is almost no thing that can be gleaned from the information so why bother? The fact that I dont think that anyone but the owner or trainer should be privy to the info is another topic.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Interesting piece.. Pretty irresponsible and disingenuous of Drape to include these statistics and assert that the U.S. has the "worst mortality rate" without explaining to a largely ignorant readership that the majority of American (main track) racing is very different than European and Australian (turf) racing.

If you didnt know the stats, would you think 1 horse out of 1000 is a "much lower" rate than 2 out of 1000?

But in his defense it is the NY Times so the standards of writing are relatively low.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you didnt know the stats, would you think 1 horse out of 1000 is a "much lower" rate than 2 out of 1000?

But in his defense it is the NY Times so the standards of writing are relatively low.

And to boot, he was using numbers that have been rendered moot anyway! Those stats were refuted 48 hours after they were originally released. As Lenny Shulman suggested to me early this morning, Drape has turned into something of a bombthrower and firestarter on drug, rescue and surface issues.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

And to boot, he was using numbers that have been rendered moot anyway! Those stats were refuted 48 hours after they were originally released. As Lenny Shulman suggested to me early this morning, Drape has turned into something of a bombthrower and firestarter on drug, rescue and surface issues.

He does work for the NY Times!

All issues that are either improperly explained, been greatly expanded or completely jumped the shark.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

The standards of intellectually honest reporting are relatively low. I'd place the standards of writing on a higher level.

Yes that would be more accurate.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cardus

The standards of intellectually honest reporting are relatively low. I'd place the standards of writing on a higher level.

Very accurate observation. They wrote very eloquently in 2003 of how we were definitely in imminent danger from Iraq. (Wrong as all get out, but how beautifully they said it!)

I admit though, I did enjoy the On the Rail blog during Kentucky Derby season.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Interesting piece.. Pretty irresponsible and disingenuous of Drape to include these statistics and assert that the U.S. has the "worst mortality rate" without explaining to a largely ignorant readership that the majority of American (main track) racing is very different than European and Australian (turf) racing.

Isn't NYRA's ace in the hole, when it comes to taking all those races off the turf, that the course is just NOT SAFE (for horse and jock)? Your point seems to be that heavy European turf courses are safer than dirt. I would agree with you.

[citycat]

These "Rainbow Blossom" people kill me.......

[magic_idol]

They did a study in australia were they scoped 1000 horses after hard work & a amazing result came back 82 % of these horses had bleed in some form , Not all horses bleed out both nostrils which is classed as a "bleeder".
I Have seen & backed unfortunately quite a few bleeders who dont bleed out the nose but when suddenly did not preform or have the classic fly for 800 mtrs the stop come back as what the vet calls white ie when it's scoped it's bleed so much it's white inside.
Bleeders are banned & no laxis is allowed in australia in case the horse falls down dead .but the reallity this never happens, more likely to be a heart attack than a bleeding attack so the non use of laxis is absolutely stupid,
On a completely different note if a racehorse has sore feet but is absolutely safe shouldnt it run on bute as its not affecting it's preformance just easing the horses pain when it runs for 1 min 12 secs.
Drug laws are made for people not horses.

[Linny]

Chuck, thank you for the detailed explanation. I understand joint injections and Adequan etc (my show hunter gets his hocks done before the show season each year) but is an antibiotic regimen that common in a horse healthy enough to be training as the favorite for the KY Derby?
I think that IWR was purchased before the Wood, meaing that a pre-purchase exam (PPE) must have been done at some point in March. I've seen PPE's done for average pleasure and show horses that reveal the start of tendon strain. I would imagine that if a buyer is paying for a multi million dollar share in a major Derby contender that the exam might be even more thorough-though I'm not sure in what areas.
Chuckles, most vets will tell you that they can do the exam and comment on the horse's current condition but cannot predict future soundness or even assess how he may handle a particlular job in the future. Unless a vet simply didn't do an ordered test or stepped well out of role and advised the purchase of a lame/unsuitable horse, it's hard to sue a vet for anything regarding a PPE.