horse racing and breeding | Horse Racing Free Tips

Voss: ‘I Love Horses’ Only Takes You So Far

I think it's fair to say that most people in the racing industry were disgusted when they read the federal indictments last March of 27 people, including trainers, veterinarians, and drug makers. The very first person from that group of 27 was sentenced this week to 18 months in prison after pleading guilty to one count of drug adulteration and misbranding.

I've reported on companies affiliated with Scott Robinson for several years now, and I had reason to suspect the conditions under which he and his co-conspirator Scott Mangini made illegal drugs were poor. Even I was surprised at some of the details in court documents filed around his sentencing, and I don't think I've been so horrified by a legal document since the original indictments.

The pre-sentencing report filed by the prosecution is littered with strong language about Robinson's involvement in peddling products designed to act as performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) or as substitutes for more expensive prescriptions. Possibly the most upsetting part of the document, which you can read here, was intercepted messages between Robinson and Mangini describing issues Robinson was seeing with products headed off for sale. Robinson describes “blood building peptide has black particles” floating in it, and a bug floating in a bottle which was “crimped,” suggesting it was a bottle of injectable product. Despite these quality concerns, Robinson kept selling the stuff, and presumably, his customers kept injecting it.

In case you wondered, as I did, what happens when you inject a product that's contaminated with bugs and other solids into a horse's muscle or vein, safe to say it's not a pretty picture. Solid particles would travel with an injected substance through a horse's veins, through the heart's atrium and ventricles, and via the aorta to the body. The vessels and capillaries it would travel through on its journey get gradually smaller, some as small as six to eight microns. The smallest particles visible to the naked eye are around 40 microns, so anything of that size will likely be stuck somewhere. In humans, the trapping of a solid particle somewhere in the circulatory system is known to cause anaphylactic shock, pulmonary embolisms, heart attacks, vein irritation, and death. If a horse in this situation is very unlucky, tissues would slowly die as they become unable to receive proper blood flow and oxygen. It's a painful experience for the animal.

According to one testing expert I spoke with, the reaction could be instant or it could take enough time that someone may not connect the horse's death to the injection it received. That likely means we won't know how many horses may have been sickened or killed by the products Robinson peddled.

Robinson's attorneys, of course, did their best to minimize the amount of time he would spend in prison after entering his guilty plea. That's their job. Prosecutors were pushing for the maximum sentence of 60 months, and defense counsel asked for 0 months. The judge landed on 18 months, which Robinson will begin serving later this year. One of the arguments made in support of Robinson grossed me out even more than his dismissive responses to concerns about the safety of his products – his attorneys suggested the judge should go easy on him, in part, because of how much he loves horses.

The defense pre-sentencing report, which you can read here, summarized character references provided by friends and family of Robinson. More than one discussed Robinson's disdain for mistreatment of animals, particularly racehorses.

“From my three years of work with Mr. Robinson, I have become aware of his great knowledge of and love for racehorses,” wrote his psychiatrist, Dr. Ronald E. DeMao. “Horses and horse racing have literally 'been his life.' It is inconceivable to me that he would ever do anything to intentionally harm a horse. In fact, he has developed products to aid in the physical health and rehabilitation of horses. I have heard him speak in very pejorative terms about others who 'dope' or harshly train racehorses.”

Writing of his “genuine concern for the way some horses are treated,” regenerative medicine physician Dr. Michael Heim said: “A story that has always struck me in a powerful way is Scott's description of a practice in horse racing called bleaching which, to the best of my knowledge, is when a horse is injected intravenously with bleach in order to improve physical performance for a short time but at an obvious cost to the horse's health. Scott has described to me how he has been able to spot such horses in a deteriorated state, purchase them, and subsequently nurse them back to health. As an animal lover, I find any practice such as bleaching to be detestable and applaud Scott's efforts to help even a single horse regain health.”

I'm left wondering whether, in his concern for racehorse welfare, Robinson ever reported to a racing commission, law enforcement, or the FDA people he thought were injecting bleach into horses. Or did he think that might be a bit hypocritical?

I don't find the notion of sentimentality over horses very compelling when it's coming from someone pleading guilty to the acts described here, or in the federal indictment. “I love horses,” will not save you if you have a hand in hurting them.

The prosecution evidently didn't find this part of Robinson's argument compelling, either.

“The claim in one such letter that Robinson “spoke in very pejorative terms about others who 'dope' racehorses contradicts the slate of products Robinson offered for sale … Far from decrying 'dopers,' Robinson catered to them through his various ventures, and reaped millions of dollars in sales from these businesses.”

But let's broaden that conclusion, shall we?

When much of the world reacted with outrage to the now-infamous photo of trainer Gordon Elliott grinning astride a dead horse in Ireland, the response from many in the racing industry was to talk about how much they love horses – or in a few cases, how much Elliott loves them. How many times have we seen this response? Horses die at Santa Anita, and well-intentioned people in racing post photos of themselves snuggling foals with the naïve belief that this will absolve whatever sin is in the headlines this month. A series of drug positives from a prominent trainer makes headlines; a racehorse winds up in the kill pen after struggling home last; a jockey is caught with a buzzer – we love our horses, all of us love them, these are just a few bad apples. 'Feel sorry for us!' they cry, 'People think we're mean, just because animals are dead.'

Anyone in public relations or in professional sports knows that the best defense is a good offense. By the time you're reacting to another welfare embarrassment, you've already lost, and that's because repeated protestations of love start to sound hollow when there keep being reasons to renew them.

It's not exactly the same, of course. The sport as a whole is made up of many individuals of different mindsets and levels of feeling for their horses, while the defendant here is one man. But it's worth remembering: when we speak to the outside world, much like a school of fish, the world sees one body, and it's going to judge us by what they see us do, not how we say we feel.

The post Voss: ‘I Love Horses’ Only Takes You So Far appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

EHV-1 Outbreak Update: Kentucky Requires Horses Coming From Ocala Have Health Certs Within 72 Hours

The following update and guidance were released to event and facility managers by E.S. “Rusty” Ford, equine operations consultant for Kentucky's Office of the State Veterinarian on March 8:

OVERVIEW

In the past seven days we have learned of multiple occurrences of EHV-1 impacting equine events throughout the world. Additionally, as we are coming to the time of year that we historically see an increase in movement of equine exhibition and racing stock into Kentucky, I want to remind all associated parties that mitigating risk of disease introduction is a shared responsibility that requires commitment from each individual exhibitor, trainer, event managers, facility operators, veterinarians, and animal health officials. Facility managers and the managers of shows/exhibitions planned to be held in Kentucky should immediately review their biosecurity practices and if needed elevate their biosecurity plan to minimize opportunity of horses having direct or indirect contact with one another. Indirect contact would include common water and feed sources as well as shared equipment and congregating in common areas. The goal of a biosecurity plan is to prevent the transmission of infectious agents among individuals and the components of a successful program will include cooperation of management, facility layout, decontamination, and when applicable immunization. Each of these factors directly affects the success or failure of the program.

Copies of the American Association of Equine Practitioners biosecurity guidelines can be downloaded at https://aaep.org/site-search?search=biosecurity or the Equine Disease Communication Centers website www.equinediseasecc.org. The documents provide good general guidance of practices that should be routinely implemented, and we encourage show managers to share these directions with all exhibitors. Additionally, our office is happy to assist facilities, show management and event veterinarians in evaluating their individual plans and when a need is identified, assist in adopting and implementing a defined plan.

FLORIDA STATUS

I did earlier today speak with the Florida State Veterinarian overseeing the EHV-1 investigation and management of the disease incident in Ocala, Fla. As of today, there continues to be a single barn on the Ocala facility with EHV-1 cases confirmed by diagnostic testing. The barn remains under quarantine and activity on the premises is being monitored by animal health officials. Equine presenting with evidence or suspicion of illness are being isolated and tested.

FLORIDA (Marion County) > KENTUCKY MOVEMENT

We appreciate the proactive action taken by the Florida Department of Agriculture to mitigate further transmission of EHV-1. With the epidemiological investigation still in its early stages, the status of potentially exposed horses unknown, and the potential risk of fomite (human) transmission to other facilities during the days preceding the diagnosis, Dr. Flynn and I both feel we are justified in stipulating that in addition to our normal entry requirements, horses destined to Kentucky from the Ocala area (identified as Marion County) be examined and a certificate of veterinary inspection (CVI) issued during the 72-hour period preceding the horse's arrival at the KY destination.

The examination and issuance of the CVI should be performed by a veterinarian familiar with the individual horse and the environment from which it originates and with confidence the horse has not been recently exposed to a reportable disease. We will continue to monitor the activity in Florida and plan to reevaluate the CVI 72-hour policy during the week ending Sunday, March 21.

European Union EHV1 Concerns: Available Testing Options for Importing Horses

Importation and Preplanning

We continue to gather and assess information describing multiple outbreaks of EHV-1 impacting equine events in several European countries. Reports published yesterday suggest there are now six countries with confirmed cases: Spain, Germany, Belgium, France, Sweden and a case in Qatar that is apparently linked to the European outbreak.

USDA announced this past Friday that horses importing through federal quarantine facilities can be sampled while completing quarantine will be allowed to be sampled with those samples sent by permit to a USDA approved laboratory for EHV1 testing by PCR. To schedule and accomplish testing, horsemen should work with their importing broker/agent to arrange for the samples to be collected, submitted, and tested.

USDA has advised us that results of the testing will be reported and shared before the horse releases from quarantine and that a positive result will not delay release of the animals so long as there is no fever or other symptoms detected. Our horsemen need to preplan and insure they have suitable space available to isolate and quarantine any horse that is reported positive. After the horse(s) arrives in Kentucky, we will work with the farm and attending veterinarians to better understand as quickly as possible the individual animal's disease status and associated risk it may pose.

The post EHV-1 Outbreak Update: Kentucky Requires Horses Coming From Ocala Have Health Certs Within 72 Hours appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Phillips: TAA Isn’t There Just To Care For Horses, But To Protect Racing’s Future

“I take care of my own,” responded the prominent owner who declined to make a commitment of financial support to the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance.

In that response is a lack of understanding about the purpose of the TAA. While the “goal” of the TAA is to assure that Thoroughbreds exiting racing receive a soft landing with a new owner who promises to assume responsibility of care, thereby relieving the racing industry of its responsibility. The “purpose” of the TAA is to protect the sport of horse racing and thereby assure its future. The goal and purpose are very different things.

It makes little difference to the TAA if you believe that horses are just livestock or that horses are a revered companion animal worthy of better treatment. These are individual values, a debate about which the TAA need not engage. What is incontestable, however, is that if we want Thoroughbred horse racing to survive, all of us must commit to a broad scope of aftercare, more than just “taking care of my own.”

Racing participants understand that Thoroughbred racing is essentially a pyramid with graded stakes at the top, descending through a myriad of classes to a very broad base of claiming ranks at the lowest end of performance. While owners and breeders of every ilk aspire to the pyramid's peak, the reality is that everyone who has owned, trained or bred horses for very long has had their share of disappointments. These disappointments work through the system and generally depart the sport through these bottom claiming ranks. All know this and rely upon the broad base to hold up the value of those special horses at the top of the pyramid. Without this base the economics of the sport will not function.

It is wonderful that so many top breeders, trainers and owners have special outlets or their own field of equine pensioners that they take care of post racing. But not all Thoroughbreds are so lucky and with the mobility and breath of our sport, keeping track of a horse you bred, raced or trained is an effort. And besides, people say, isn't that someone else's responsibility once ownership of the horse was transferred?

In a perfect world, it is the transferees' responsibility, but this is not a perfect world. Those “special equines” who earn private pensioner status rely on a healthy sport with its broad base of the less talented through which they rise to earn that “special” pensioned treatment. To be clear, the TAA vigorously pursues all sectors and all levels, including the most modest of our sport, to help finance their on-the-ground partners who do the work of retraining, rehoming and sanctuary. These efforts most certainly include education and fundraising at the very base of the pyramid. But efforts at the base of the pyramid, while financially helpful, burn a lot of oxygen and are more long-term approaches at a time when the public demands immediate results.

John Phillips

This sport is a privilege. Those of us who have enjoyed its thrills and love its culture, however experienced, must do more than just “take care of our own.” We must take care of the future of the sport and if that means we must do more than our share of aftercare, then so be it. To whom much is given, much is also required.

The TAA, with an ever-increasing number of partners (the total is now estimated to be at 83) with 175 retraining, rehoming or retirement facilities, is desperately trying to defend the sport by answering the public's clear demand for a soft landing of our athletes as they exit racing competition. TAA is a well thought-out, practical and effective answer to the public's concern. Our “first exit from racing” philosophy is getting closer every year to assuring that all horses exiting racing get this soft landing from the sport.

Whether you're an owner, breeder, buyer or seller, a stallion farm or trainer, when the TAA seeks your support, keep in mind that our “purpose” is to protect the sport. And now with COVID-19 negatively impacting TAA's income, we need those who “take care of their own” for which the TAA is most appreciative, to take one further step and help the TAA take care of the sport.

John Phillips is a third-generation horseman, owner of Darby Dan Farm near Lexington, Ky., and manager of Phillips Racing Partnership. Phillips has served on a number of board positions in the racing industry and has previously been a director of the board of the Bluegrass Conservancy, Thoroughbred Club of America, and Breeders' Cup, and is currently a director of The Jockey Club Information Systems and is on TOBA's executive committee. Phillips also served two terms as a racing commissioner in Kentucky. He is the immediate past president of the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance and serves on its board and executive committee.

The post Phillips: TAA Isn’t There Just To Care For Horses, But To Protect Racing’s Future appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

What It Takes For A Reporter To Call Out A Cheating Trainer

We received a frustrated letter to the editor this past weekend with a familiar tune. A horse had won a graded stakes race in impressive fashion, continuing a trend of improved form that had started after the horse left the barn of one trainer for another. Why, the reader asked, did they not see coverage of the race dotted with warnings or aspersions about the trainer and his horse's meteoric rise?

It's a question we've heard before when a trainer has what a horseplayer considers an unusually high win percentage or when a horse turns in a dominant performance.

'Why are you too scared to just say the guy is cheating?' people will ask, usually with too many exclamation points. 'Why do you promote these trainers all the time?' they'll write at the end of a race preview or recap.

There are a few reasons we elected not to run that letter, and a few reasons we're not going to put out articles accusing someone of illegal activity based on suspicions or statistics.

First of all, it's important to understand there are different types of coverage on this and other publications. In our case, stories fall into the basic categories of news, features, and investigations.

If a trainer who readers are suspicious of wins a big race, we cannot pretend they didn't win it. We have to report on the results of that race. Likewise, when a trainer has a top contender for an upcoming race, we have to acknowledge that. These types of stories tend to come with quotes from owners, jockeys, and yes, trainers. Quotes may or may not ring as genuine to us or to our readers, but our job as reporters is to report those quotes and that information accurately. It is not for us to opine on them in those spaces.

Secondly, we get a lot of questions about why we don't “expose” a trainer for what a reader may believe is obvious cheating. Many readers may not realize how difficult that is to do – or how much work goes into an investigation of any kind. For us to report on an illegal drug program, we need details. What substance is being given, how it's given, to which horses, when, and where it comes from. We need proof of all those details, and we need to be able to verify that proof independently. There are relatively few people with access to those details in a barn. Probably, it comes down to the trainer, the trainer's supplier, and some number of staff.

There's a reason it took FBI wire taps to reveal the web of connections between indicted trainers Jorge Navarro and Jason Servis and their alleged doping rings – it's because they believed they were giving horses a performance advantage that would benefit their connections financially, but only if they kept their programs a secret.

One section of the government's evidence included in the March 2020 federal indictment included a mention that Servis warned Navarro via text message about the presence of a racing official in the barn area where the two trainers allegedly stored and administered performance-enhancing drugs to horses. In a call later intercepted between Navarro and co-defendant Michael Tannuzzo, Navarro said “[H]e would've caught our assess [expletive] pumping and pumping and fuming every [expletive] horse [that] runs today.”

But he didn't catch them.

Trainers who are giving horses an illegal edge know how to evade testing, and they know to avoid being caught red-handed by the racing investigators who walk the barns daily in some (but not all) states. Their careers depend on keeping that a secret. They and their suppliers have financial incentive to make sure they leave no proof – in sales records, in the feed room, or, as we saw in the indictment, in veterinary records. They have power over their staff members, who would certainly lose their jobs if they reported their bosses and who may legitimately fear they'd never find work on the backstretch again if they crossed someone powerful.

A reporter like me – with limited access to barns, no subpoena power, and no wire taps – has two choices: call and ask a trainer if they're cheating, or hope someone on the inside can help me get the proof I need. The former isn't likely to help much, since they will either truthfully tell me they're not or lie. It will put them on notice, and if they're doing something they shouldn't be, they're probably going to take that activity more underground than it already was, making it harder for me or anyone else to catch them. The latter is extremely unlikely, but my inbox is always open.

I like to think the Paulick Report has gained the reputation it has for investigative reporting because of how carefully we verify our information before it's published. When pursuing something controversial, we try to not only report the story as fairly as we can, but to verify and reverify every detail to ensure our confidence in the facts we have. Sometimes that means leaving out salacious details, and sometimes it means passing on stories altogether if we can't get the evidence we need. We approach stories this way, yes, partly because we don't want to be hit with a libel suit, but also because we believe these standards foster trust in our readers.

None of this is to say that we don't have our own opinions about what we see out there – just that we can't base a true investigative story on an opinion and a win percentage. Opinions, after all, are like … well, you know the phrase.

The post What It Takes For A Reporter To Call Out A Cheating Trainer appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post