findeight - I wasn’t making a point. I was stating a fact.
Where’sMyWhite - Me too.
I didn’t see a deadline for findings in the DA release. Personally, I’ll be surprised if their investigation turns up any criminal acts. And, I’ll be even more surprised if they are able to conclusively determine a cause.
After reading an article today on BH, Racetrack Coalition Moves Toward Lasix Ban in Stakes, I was reflecting on a similar change and initiative in a sports industry. (Twenty racetracks have committed to ending race-day Lasix in stakes in 2021).
My personal opinions, thoughts and experience only 
I don’t think that Lasix had anything to do with spate of breakdowns that SA experienced this winter nor any of the other breakdown spikes that other tracks have experienced one the last few years. I believe that the industry in the US has been discussing Lasix and a possible ban/moratorium on its use for many years, but not arrives at any consensus.
I was reminded this morning of maybe how SA’s spike in breakdowns may be a catalyst for many other far reaching changes in racing in the US.
On February 18, 2001, Dale Earnhardt was killed on the last lap of the Daytona 500 (a day I will personally never forget). For many years, NASCAR resisted making changes to tracks (technically not their pervue) as well as car and driver safety. Dale’s death wasn’t the first in a spate of NASCAR-related deaths. Adam Petty (May, 2000) and Kenny Irwin (July, 2000), both in NASCAR’s top 2 series, also died before Dale’s death and yet NASCAR took no visible action until Dale’s death.
Since then, NASCAR along with the tracks have made the top racing series’ racing at those tracks so much safer to the point that at the top levels, a death has not occurred since Dale. Have other race car drivers died? Yes, but at other tracks in other series and other disciplines.
Sometimes it takes a significant event to get a sporting collective to sit up and “do something” to keep the sporting collective from disappearing into the dust. NASCAR isn’t the betting public darling that horse racing is but both horse racing and car racing have an entire industry with thousands of employees dependent on the continued business of that sport.
Arrrggghhh - just posted something with a link that got unapproved 
I’ll repost again without the link
After reading an article today on BH, Racetrack Coalition Moves Toward Lasix Ban in Stakes, I was reflecting on a similar change and initiative in a sports industry. (Twenty racetracks have committed to ending race-day Lasix in stakes in 2021).
My personal opinions, thoughts and experience only
I don’t think that Lasix had anything to do with spate of breakdowns that SA experienced this winter nor any of the other breakdown spikes that other tracks have experienced one the last few years. I believe that the industry in the US has been discussing Lasix and a possible ban/moratorium on its use for many years, but not arrives at any consensus.
I was reminded this morning of maybe how SA’s spike in breakdowns may be a catalyst for many other far reaching changes in racing in the US.
On February 18, 2001, Dale Earnhardt was killed on the last lap of the Daytona 500 (a day I will personally never forget). For many years, NASCAR resisted making changes to tracks (technically not their pervue) as well as car and driver safety. Dale’s death wasn’t the first in a spate of NASCAR-related deaths. Adam Petty (May, 2000), Kenny Irwin (July, 2000) and Tony Roper (October, 2000) all in NASCAR’s top series, also died before Dale’s death and yet NASCAR took no visible action until Dale’s death.
Since then, NASCAR along with the tracks have made the top racing series’ racing at those tracks so much safer to the point that at the top levels, a death has not occurred since Dale. Have other race car drivers died? Yes, but at other tracks in other series and other disciplines.
Sometimes it takes a significant event to get a sporting collective to sit up and “do something” to keep the sporting collective from disappearing into the dust. NASCAR isn’t the betting public darling that horse racing is but both horse racing and car racing have an entire industry with thousands of employees dependent on the continued business of that sport.
The AAEP supports the use of Lasix.
https://aaep.org/position-therapeutic-medications-racehorses
By committing to banning Lasix by 2021, the tracks are just kicking the can down the road.
@Where’sMyWhite - this is a really good article on Lasix.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/aug/31/lasix-drug-debate-bleeding-horse-racing
You all do realize that trainers can still use Lasix for works, just not race days.
Curious. Why would I train a horse on a med they can’t use on race day? If I was a trainer, I wouldn’t be using a med for training that I can’t use on race day.
If you have a horse that bleeds, you don’t want it to bleed. Ever. When you race–if Lasix is banned–you won’t have a choice. But when you train, you will.
Significant bleeding causes scarring in the throat. Often, subsequent bleeding incidents take longer to heal than previous ones. So the less bleeding, the better. Trainers will keep their horses healthy when they train, then take their chances when they race.
@LaurieB Thanks. I guess my thought/question is if a horse’s physiology gets ‘used to’ Lasix when using during training and then has a different physiological behavior when racing without. Yes, I know there will be some difference just because using Lasix vs not but if a horse gets it regularly, is the non-Lasix race going to have an enhanced reaction to no Lasix vs if the horse never got it at all?
I do get not wanting the horse to bleed, that part I really do.
Also curious then if using Lasix is overall a “benefit” why many of the countries across the pond don’t allow Lasix.
Lastly (since I’m just sitting here looking at the poppies in my front yard ), is there a belief that bleeding is genetic in nature and one can strive to breed to no produce a bleeder (Runhappy comes to mind ).
Runhappy is a sprinter, the shorter the race the less likely they are to bleed in general so he isn’t a real good example of not needing lasix in my opinion.
The link in post #462 discusses most of the above. I know, I know, you don’t usually click on the links, but it’s a good read.
Horses that bleed are also more susceptible to pneumonia and other pulmonary infections.
they don’t seem to have much of a problem in Europe where they put us to shame on distance runners and their turf and hurdle races are 2-4 miles in length and borderline exhausting to many horses. Its time for people in the US to stop putting up a smoke screen and acknowledge the real issue at hand. this is a horse welfare issue and this country’s overmedicating of horses has made us the laughing stock of the world. People are still trying to figure out what kind of un-labeled drug is in Bobby Bob’s medicine cabinet. Granted their are cheaters everywhere; in every country that horses’ race; why is it that people within the industry in America continue to put their sunglasses on to legit issues.
I am not saying that Lasix does not have it’s place. Some horses need it for legitimate, severe issues. But the fact that the majority of trainers in America have accepted this as a therapeutic drug regardless of actual diagnostics/needs on a horse by horse basis (give it to every runner in the barn whether they bleed or not) is what is wrong.
The racing jurisdictions need to start making rules based on Veterinarians who have the horse’s best interest in mind. Not Vet’s who have the pharma companies in their pockets or whiney trainers with big pockets. Look what happened to the new whip rule they tried to put in place. they all whined and the governing bodies bowed out. I say, institute a max of 2 hits, maybe 3, and if there is more you are up for a DQ or major fines. But that’s another argument/issue
You are misinformed if you think Lasix is not used in Europe. They train on it, and then simply pull water buckets to dehydrate the horse prior to the race. And horses that run 2-4 miles in distance run much slower than horses going 6f to 1 1/4, and don’t bleed at those slower speeds. I believe many of our steeplechase horses - and I think including Senior Senator - don’t race on Lasix. Again, they don’t run fast enough to bleed. Lasix is a proven safe and performance enhancing drug, and why would a trainer handicap his or her horse by not using it within the parameters of the rules? The vets support Lasix use, and the AAEP publicly supports the use of Lasix. You do realize that in most jurisdictions Lasix is administered on race days by the state vet who is usually a salaried or contract employee and is not paid per cc of Lasix and who has no connection to the drug companies? Lasix is not a big moneymaker for the private vets either.
The shape of the race is very different in Europe as is the surface. Turf at Newmarket where it rains more days than it doesn’t and the race meet is measured in days, where the runners go up and down hills and no one works on it every morning just isn’t the same as the Widener turf course much less Santa Anita. In Europe, the runners go slow, slow, slow and then they sprint for home–even if they are running two miles. Frankel won the Queen’s Anne by 11 lengths in 1:38–his last eighth was an awesome 10 seconds but the overall time itself is pretty pedestrian in the US.
That is not to criticize Frankel but to illustrate how different it is.
Also they use Lasix over there outside of races and the bleeders come here.
Local news station just released this. Apparently 36 horses died in 2018 and, based on necropsies, many had issues before their fatal injuries. Not sure how significant this is, but I figured it was worth sharing.
If it opens in FB and you’re on a phone you may have to play a round or two of whack-an-ad to get it to open in your browser.
Peggy means 2018. FWIW, these statistics are available, and have been for a while, on the EID.
"ARCADIA (CBSLA) – Amid the controversy over 23 horses who have died while racing or training at Santa Anita Park in Arcadia since December, CBS2 has uncovered that there were 36 additional horse deaths at Santa Anita in 2018.
According to documents obtained by CBS2’s David Goldstein, 36 horses had to be euthanized after racing or training accidents at Santa Anita last year.
CBS2 provided the 36 necropsy reports for those deaths to Veterinarian Dr. Kate Papp — who treats horses at Penn National Race Course in Pennsylvania – for review. Papp determined that nearly all those horses had pre-existing conditions.
“A lot of chronic wear and tear with the horses,” Papp told CBS2. “Signs that the horses may not have been 100 percent comfortable when they were racing and training.”
One of those 36 horses, Ten Blessings, suffered a shattered front ankle during a race.
“It (the necropsy report) does mention that the horse had a slab fracture on a completely different leg,” Papp said.
Another horse, Sweet Emma, had to be euthanized last April. Her necropsy showed a “predisposing lesion for the fracture” in her ankle.
And Dial Me In, who was euthanized last April after making contact with another horse, showed a previous shoulder injury, according to the necropsy.
It’s unclear if the trainers or veterinarians for the 36 horses knew about these injuries. Papp says that in some instances they may have. However, she says that several trainers at Santa Anita have told her that they’re strongly encouraged to ensure the horses compete more often.
“If the racing office is calling, asking people to enter the horses before they’re ready to come back, that certainly puts another component of risk and that’s something that may be unique to Santa Anita,” Papp said.
Veterinarian Dr. Rick Arthur oversees horse welfare and safety for the California Horse Racing Board, which regulates all tracks in the state. Arthur admits that there is more pressure to perform at Santa Anita than at other tracks.
“Our horses work more here, and train more here, than they do in other jurisdictions,” Arthur told Goldstein.
Twenty-three horses have died while racing or training at Santa Anita since Dec. 26.
Racing at Santa Anita was temporarily suspended in February – following the 19th horse death — and again in March – following the 21st horse death — so experts could conduct testing on the park’s three tracks – the main, training and turf tracks — to try and pinpoint the possible cause.
In April, the board decided to allow racing to continue at Santa Anita for the remainder of the season despite the slew of horse deaths.
When questioned by Goldstein regarding whether it’s the board’s responsibility to watch out for the health of the horses, Arthur responded, “Well it does, but there’s only so much you can regulate.”
On May 1, one day after Arthur’s interview with CBS2, Santa Anita’s owner, The Stronach Group, announced it had invested $500,000 to secure a cutting-edge device which it says helps “flag pre-existing conditions” in horses.
According to numbers from The Jockey Club, horse deaths at Santa Anita went down from 2.83 deaths per 1,000 starts in 2016, to just over 2.04 deaths in 2018. That’s still higher than the national average of 1.68.
“Do you think you and the board have done enough to keep the horses safe?” Goldstein asked Arthur.
“I think we can always do more,” Arthur responded.
Santa Anita Park refused a request for an on-camera interview with CBS2, but issued the following statement:
“Santa Anita is raising safety standards with unprecedented measures to increase the welfare of all athletes, especially our horses. In stride with our partners, we have taken steps to reduce the risk that horses run at Santa Anita with pre-existing conditions. Pre-existing injuries should not be masked, but rather addressed with the highest levels of medical scrutiny.
The Stronach Group has donated $500,000 to the Dolly Green Research Foundation (DRGF) to support the purchase of the cutting-edge Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Scan. The PET Scan has been praised by experts as a revolutionary breakthrough in equine health when it comes to detecting and understanding pre-existing bone injury. This machine will be available at Santa Anita Park at Southern California Equine Foundation’s Equine Hospital in Santa Anita’s Barn area Fall 2019. While more work needs to be done, The Stronach Group is committed to advancing the safety of our beloved horses.”
======
So basically Santa Anita leaned on horsemen to fill fields, and then blamed the horsemen and lasix for horses breaking down. Since implementing their new safety standards, they’ve cancelled the entire Thursday cards.
Is there any information available about what the criteria will be for use of the PET scan? I would think that leaving the decision to scan or not to scan up to the trainers, would not be effective if the following quotes are accurate:
“Nearly all” of the (36) 2018 necropsies showed pre-existing conditions" and “it is unclear if the trainers and veterinarians knew about these injuries” “Papp says that in some instances they may have” (known).
How will Santa Anita compel the use of the PET scan which, even if the machine itself is paid for, is an expensive proposition?
I’d be surprised if SA offers free PET scans. It will be interesting to see what sort of protocol is put in place.
It depends on how much it costs. You can’t exactly hit an owner with a huge vet bill without saying something to the owner first. There is also software that gets used along with the machine - the images get uploaded so the vets can easily access them and email them for second/surgery opinions etc.
The pre-existing conditions are usually microfractures, which don’t show up on xrays.
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
