He has an elevated white blood cell count.
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/triple-crown/elevated-blood-count-rules-nyquist-belmont-stakes/
(Or Doug O’Neill doesn’t want to get involved with the testing procedures in NY. Gee when have we seen this before?)
I understand your suspicion and you may well be correct but I was surprised they were even considering running him in the first place. Except for the potential purse money he really has nothing to gain by running in it now that he isn’t going for the TC. It’s such an obscure distance that a win wouldn’t really help his stud portfolio but a loss may especially if it is significant.
Can anyone explain how the NY testing procedures are different from other states? I have seen this reason for withdrawing Nyquist given in other places, and I’m curious.
yes, i’d be interested too. i know that horses can’t run on Lasix in NY (or at least they didn’t used to be able to) but i’m not up on the current rules up there.
To me, it comes across as the owner “crying wolf.” When I’ll have Another was scratched the day before the Belmont for a then un-specified “leg swelling” (not to mention non-visible), it came across (at least to me) as Mr. Reddam deliberately scratching his horse because he knew he couldn’t/wouldn’t win and didn’t want him to look bad. Now this makes 2 in a row.
“i know that horses can’t run on Lasix in NY.”
Sure they can.
[QUOTE=beaujolais;8676102]
“i know that horses can’t run on Lasix in NY.”
Sure they can.[/QUOTE]
OK, clearly that changed.
In 1995 they began allowing it.
I do remember that NY was considering nixing Chrome’s breathing strip thing before the Belmont in 2014, so they appear to be stricter than other places. Lasix is pretty much legal all over the US though, because most barns (Baffert, etc.) run all their horses on Lasix whether needed or not.
I don’t like O’Neill particularly (or at all), and I could see him pulling the horse for a number of reasons. I would not put it past him to pull for the drug testing reason (or because he knew his horse would lose and found a great excuse), to be honest, but it also puts him in a better PR light to take care of the horse instead, considering he did spike a fever. Plus Nyquist doesn’t really need to win the Belmont with no TC on the line. So for O’Neill it’s a win-win-win-(win?): no drug testing, looks better for PR, rested horse, horse focuses on the best distances/races for the future.
Well, my take is that the colt was coming down with something for the Preakness, quite possibly. That, and the fact that they burned through the first quarter opened the door to Exaggerator’s win. Do I think that Exaggerator could have won anyway? Sure, but if Nyquist is healthy, and actually runs his race, it could have been different.
Just my .02.
I think he bled personally but that is just an educated guess.
[QUOTE=beaujolais;8676157]
In 1995 they began allowing it.
just shows you how long i’ve been watching the triple crown. 
Bled, maybe. Not quite 100%, maybe. (We’ll probably never know the truth).
I do remember thinking that that first quarter was smokin’ they were going so fast and wondering if Nyquist was leaving his race right there at the start and not where he needed it at the end…
Exaggerator had the perfect trip on the rail and if any/all/combination of the above were true for Nyquist, he didn’t have a chance of beating Exaggerator…
Will be interesting to see where Nyquist is pointed next (and yeah, I was a bit surprised that the Belmont was on his dance card after the Preakness).
[QUOTE=clint;8676079]
Can anyone explain how the NY testing procedures are different from other states? I have seen this reason for withdrawing Nyquist given in other places, and I’m curious.[/QUOTE]
This in an article about the measures the NYRA took in 2012 when O’Neill was planning to run I’ll Have Another in the Belmont. They are much more stringent than any others that I’m aware of.
http://www.drf.com/news/belmont-stakes-2012-barn-area-security-tightened
Horses in the Belmont Stakes on June 9 will be subjected to strict security and drug-testing protocols under a series of requirements announced on Wednesday by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board.The horses will be required to enter a security barn at Belmont Park by noon on Wednesday, June 6, which will be guarded 24 hours a day by board investigators and private security personnel. Access to the barn will be limited to the horses’ trainers, assistant trainers, grooms, hotwalkers, veterinarians, and owners, and anyone entering the barn will need to sign log sheets indicating the time and the reason of their visit. The visitors will be subject to “administrative searches and checks of all equipment, feed, hay, bales, etc.,” the board said.
When the horses arrive at the barn, investigators will draw blood from them to test for illegal substances, the board said. Treatments of the horses will be closely monitored, the board said, with veterinary visits accompanied by an escort.
On June 6 and June 7, vets will be required “to provide written notice of intended treatment” and those treatments will be monitored by security personnel. On June 8, veterinarians will not be allowed to administer treatments “without first making an appointment with [board] investigators,” the board said, and on June 9, “treatment will only be permitted for emergency or by agreements with the stewards.”
The measures come at a time of urelenting attacks on the perceived integrity of racing by both critics of the sport and state officials. The New York Racing Association, which operates Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga, has come under scrutiny after a recent series of deaths at Aqueduct’s winter meeting and an investigation into the asssociation’s takeout rates of some exotic bets in 2010 and 2011. The scrutiny has put NYRA’s franchise to operate the tracks in jeopardy, and last week NYRA reached an agreement with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo that will require the association to dissolve its board, with the majority of the new appointments given to Cuomo and the state legislature.
In part, critics of the sport have been emboldened by the presence in the Belmont Stakes of Doug O’Neill, the California-based trainer of I’ll Have Another, the horse who has already won the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness Stakes and is trying to become the first horse in 34 years to win the Triple Crown.
O’Neill has been penalized four times in his career for having horses under his care test positive for elevated levels of total carbon dioxide, which can indicate that a horse was administered substances – sometimes referred to as a milkshake – intended to stave off fatigue. Last week, O’Neill, who has denied ever administering a milkshake to one of his horses, was suspended for 45 days by the California Horse Racing Board for a 2010 positive test of elevated total carbon dioxide. The suspension is not scheduled to start until July. The ruling concluded that no milkshake had been given because of the small test overage but that a suspension was required by the absolute insurer rule, which holds a trainer responsible for the condition of his horses regardless of fault or intent.
O’Neill said on Wednesday that “he has no problem” with the security measures for the Belmont Stakes. I’ll Have Another has been at Belmont since May 20, the day after the Preakness. O’Neill arrived late last week.
“We have so much confidence in the horse that even though it’s a distraction to move three days out, it’s a great way to show people who love the game that all the horses are housed together in the same locker room,” O’Neill said.
Last week, stewards at Belmont informed O’Neill that I’ll Have Another will be prohibited from using a nasal strip in the race. I’ll Have Another wore the nasal strip during the Derby and Preakness.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;8676176]
I think he bled personally but that is just an educated guess.[/QUOTE]
Another guess, he ran a race unlike others, not up to his previous form, so there was something off.
He was hard to rate, he ran out of steam more than he should have at that distance, came out of it spiking a fever.
It all points to maybe he was coming down with something.
Right or not, that is a perfectly good excuse, with what happen in that race and no TC prospects, to withdraw him for a bit, until you see what you have, especially since he only has three short weeks to recuperate and considering in what company he would have to run.
[QUOTE=Bluey;8676454]
Another guess, he ran a race unlike others, not up to his previous form, so there was something off.
He was hard to rate, he ran out of steam more than he should have at that distance, came out of it spiking a fever.
It all points to maybe he was coming down with something.
Right or not, that is a perfectly good excuse, with what happen in that race and no TC prospects, to withdraw him for a bit, until you see what you have, especially since he only has three short weeks to recuperate and considering in what company he would have to run.[/QUOTE]
He ran the fastest opening quarter in Preakness history; even faster than the mighty Secretariat. In the slop. That is just begging for a bleed. I saw the vet head that way with the scope but obviously didn’t see the outcome or if he was even going to check Nyquist although I assume a horse of his caliber is scoped after every start.
[QUOTE=Bluey;8676454]
Another guess, he ran a race unlike others, not up to his previous form, so there was something off.
He was hard to rate, he ran out of steam more than he should have at that distance, came out of it spiking a fever.
It all points to maybe he was coming down with something.
Right or not, that is a perfectly good excuse, with what happen in that race and no TC prospects, to withdraw him for a bit, until you see what you have, especially since he only has three short weeks to recuperate and considering in what company he would have to run.[/QUOTE]
Bluey, I’m with you. On TV there was a shot of him after they galloped out, but still on the track, he stood with head down and looked spent. I wondered then if he would come out ok.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;8676475]
He ran the fastest opening quarter in Preakness history; even faster than the mighty Secretariat. In the slop. That is just begging for a bleed. I saw the vet head that way with the scope but obviously didn’t see the outcome or if he was even going to check Nyquist although I assume a horse of his caliber is scoped after every start.[/QUOTE]
That too, guess that we will never know.
It is always good to hold your horse back if you don’t think a race is right for it, for whatever reasons and that is what they are doing, I think.
Exaggerator sure looked good to come back for the next race.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;8676066]
I understand your suspicion and you may well be correct but I was surprised they were even considering running him in the first place. Except for the potential purse money he really has nothing to gain by running in it now that he isn’t going for the TC. It’s such an obscure distance that a win wouldn’t really help his stud portfolio but a loss may especially if it is significant.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t call a mile and a half obscure. Time was, when a classics horse was valued for stud potential.
Yes, I know I’m getting older, but not all change is for the good.
And an elevated blood count 2 1/2 weeks before a race? Not enough time to recover?
[QUOTE=2tempe;8676477]
Bluey, I’m with you. On TV there was a shot of him after they galloped out, but still on the track, he stood with head down and looked spent. I wondered then if he would come out ok.[/QUOTE]
I thought he looked spent too, he just ran out of juice. So maybe not running is a good idea.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
