Op/Ed | Horse Racing Free Tips

Show Us The Paper, Bob: Records To Back Up Baffert’s Story Remain A Matter Of Trust

The number of people inclined to nod along when Hall of Fame trainer Bob Baffert says, “Just trust me,” is getting smaller and smaller these days. First there was Justify, then Charlatan/Gamine, then Merneith, then Gamine again, and now Medina Spirit – five drug violations in the past year and six in recent memory. This time, Baffert told media on Sunday, he was getting out in front of the issue, not waiting for a split sample test came back positive before announcing that his horse had failed a post-race test. He has since told mainstream media that he didn't want to repeat his mistakes in the Justify case, where he and the California Horse Racing Board were widely criticized for keeping the colt's test for scopolamine a secret until the New York Times reported on it months later.

The advantage of being transparent about something like this is that you can control the narrative, and since the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission isn't permitted to discuss a positive before a split sample test and a ruling, Baffert and his legal team have arguably been able to do just that. Baffert has made quite the media tour since Sunday morning, appearing on CBS, Fox News, and elsewhere to tell his side of the story, which seemed to mostly amount to 'I don't know what happened but testing is too strict.'

When Baffert's public stance evolved from 'I didn't do it' to 'Ok, I did it, but it was a mistake,' there was ample opportunity to keep a strong public front. On Tuesday, a statement distributed via Baffert attorney Craig Robertson blamed the betamethasone positive on Otomax, an anti-fungal cream made for dogs which contains betamethasone. This, Robertson said, was used on dermatitis on Medina Spirit after the Santa Anita Derby daily until the day before the Kentucky Derby.

“As I have stated, my investigation is continuing and we do not know for sure if this ointment was the cause of the test results, or if the test results are even accurate, as they have yet to be confirmed by the split sample,” read Baffert's Tuesday statement. “However, again, I have been told that a finding of a small amount, such as 21 picograms, could be consistent with application of this type of ointment. I intend to continue to investigate and I will continue to be transparent.”

So, be transparent.

The beautiful thing about the administration of a prescription therapeutic drug in either California or Kentucky is that it should leave quite a paper trail. First, there would be the prescription itself, which would appear on the box the ointment container came in (the same box that lists betamethasone as an ingredient) or possibly the tube itself (which also lists the ointment's ingredients). The prescription would include a date, instructions for use, and the veterinarian's name. Then, administration of a prescription to a horse in California should trigger a daily treatment report to the California Horse Racing Board. Treatment of a Derby horse in Kentucky would also trigger a daily treatment report, given to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. The prescribing veterinarian would also have a record of dispensing the medication – probably more than once, as it comes in a small container intended for dogs – alongside a diagnosis and dates.

Unlike other types of records, veterinary records that are provided in the course of reporting to the state racing commissions do not become subject to public records requests. In general terms, veterinary records are owned by the owner or manager of the animal, not the veterinarian, clinic, or any third party. So Kentucky and California cannot release what records they have (or don't have) about this lengthy prescription treatment, but Baffert could. Likewise, he could authorize the release of his veterinarian's records. In fact, he was asked during Sunday's news conference whether he planned to release his records and his response was that he intended to release them to the Kentucky commission.

When this reporter asked whether there were treatment reports submitted to the CHRB for Otomax, Robertson responded with the following: “I do not know. As you can imagine I have had my hands full. What I do have are the vet records showing the treatment.”

When asked whether Baffert intended to provide evidence of the vet's prescription of Otomax, Robertson replied “We have those vet records and have provided them to Pimlico.”

While it's certainly understandable that Baffert doesn't want the general public, with its lack of veterinary knowledge, rifling through his horse's medical history, he's the one who started this.

When asked whether the prescribing veterinarian, who so far Baffert has declined to name, had a rationale for choosing Otomax as a treatment for skin disease over other treatments that don't contain betamethasone, Robertson said he didn't know.

A photo provided with Tuesday's statement showed an image of a dark bay horse's right hindquarter, dotted with areas of skin irritation characteristic of the dermatitis described by Baffert. What wasn't specified in the statement was the date the photo was taken; since it was provided as evidence of a condition the horse was treated for from around the April 3 Santa Anita Derby until the day before the May 1 Kentucky Derby, one may assume it was intended to show the condition as it appeared during that timeframe. However, metadata on the image indicates it was taken with an iPhone around 7 a.m. on May 11. If Baffert's veterinarian had been made available to the press and the public, it would be logical to ask why four weeks' worth of prescription treatment had apparently not resolved the issue, which was also visible in images and video of the horse taken at Pimlico Wednesday morning.

A follow-up question asking Robertson about the timing of the image was not answered.

As a reporter, I can appreciate any subject's attempts to be transparent – it's supposed to make my job easier. But true transparency, particularly from someone who hasn't always provided it, means more than just “trust me.”

The post Show Us The Paper, Bob: Records To Back Up Baffert’s Story Remain A Matter Of Trust appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Op/Ed: HISA Necessary for Our Future

At the end of 2020, I was happy to hear that an important piece of legislation geared toward keeping our horses safe, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), was signed into law. I chose to support HISA because it will establish the same medication rules and penalties at every track in every jurisdiction in the United States, which makes for fair and equal competition, promotes equine welfare and punishes those who cross the line. This week, I read the news that the governing authority established by HISA announced its board of directors, and even though I don't recognize every name on the list, the fact that this law is becoming a reality brings me hope for the future of the sport I love.

As someone who has been around racehorses since I could walk and has trained them for more than 40 years, horse racing is my life. I take pride in my training operation, which has competed at the highest levels while prioritizing equine welfare and conducting ourselves with integrity. Unfortunately, not all horsemen can say the same. Some use nefarious medications to mask injuries and make their horses perform better while others only run their horses in states where they can take advantage of lax rules. On numerous occasions, I have speculated that my horses were not competing on a level playing field simply because my team and I follow the rules that others bend and ignore.

As I said before, I love this sport and the horses that I get to work with every day, and ensuring they can have a sustainable future is important to me and my family. I believe that HISA is necessary for that future.

The post Op/Ed: HISA Necessary for Our Future appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter To The Editor: Monmouth’s Whip Rules ‘Not Worth Dying For,’ Says Contessa

I have really thought hard about sending this letter, but the time has come to speak up.

I have been a trainer since 1984. I have won over 2,300 races and been on just about every safety panel ever presented to the public. I have over 40 videos on Youtube @GaryContessa because I love to talk about this business and try to teach those interested about this business. I would like to give my thoughts on the Monmouth Park whip rule.

I am all about the safety of racehorses, but even more concerned with the safety of our jockeys. I have told every jockey who ever rode for me and every exercise rider who has ever worked for me, “If you feel something, scratch; if you feel something, bring them home.” I — as well as every one of my peers — do not ever want to be responsible for getting a rider hurt. When riders get hurt by a 1,200-pound horse running 40 miles per hour, it is only luck if they only get bumps and bruises. Usually, their injuries are far worse.

What is happening at Monmouth is typical of what is wrong with our industry. It is not just New Jersey — it is almost everywhere. We have non-horse people in authority dictating safety protocol and rules and regulations for our industry without ever having worked in the front lines and with virtually no experience whatsoever with horses. I may be going on a limb here, but I believe it is a very good guess that whomever set up and pushed the new whip rule in New Jersey never rode a race in his or her life. It is also probable that their lifetime experience with horses is limited to a carousel or a pony ride.

What really bothers me, and again is typical of this industry, is they had no desire to hear what the jockeys had to say on the matter. Now think about this: a 1,200-pound horse ridden by a 110-pound jockey is going to be judged by someone on the roof of the grandstand, or in an office somewhere in New Jersey as to whether or not the rider's whip use was correct.

Let me tell you from experience: because of horses, I have a knee replacement on one side, six screws in the other knee, and seven screws in an ankle, and that is just from working on horses on the ground. Horses can really damage a human if they choose to, be it a trainer, groom, or jockey. Sometimes in the blink of an eye a horse sends you a signal and you say, “Oh boy,” and prepare for the worst. For a jockey riding one at 40 miles per hour, I can tell you the signal that they get from that horse happens in less than the blink of an eye.

Telling a jockey he cannot use the whip is the worst rule I have seen in recent memory. Limiting the use of the whip to three or four hits in a certain place is so much more intelligent than the rule at Monmouth.

We have made the whips now so they are heard but not even felt by the horse. Today's whips are not inhumane and if you need proof, there is a nice video with Ramon Dominguez out there showing that humans feel nothing when hit by the whip. Jockeys need to get a horse's attention before they do something, not after it is too late. When they see those ears going back, when the horse is looking too hard at a competitor or when they grab the bit in an effort to go outside or lug in. We have seen this all too often. In a moment a horse ducks in or out and causes a catastrophic accident while getting tangled up with another horse. The horse behind goes down and every horse behind him goes over him.

Jockeys know what they are doing. They, like myself, get a signal right before a horse is going to do something. Horsemen feel it. That subtle signal that comes right before they are about to do something. Sometimes we pick up that signal and sometimes we end up in a hospital, but to take away a jockey's instinct and threaten punishment for simply doing what they have always done to keep horse and rider safe is a bad precedent, and if I were a jockey I would not want to ride at Monmouth Park. It is just not worth dying for.

–Gary Contessa, multiple graded stakes-winning trainer and top trainer in New York by wins, 2006-08

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, please write to info at paulickreport.com and include contact information where you may be reached if editorial staff have any questions.

The post Letter To The Editor: Monmouth’s Whip Rules ‘Not Worth Dying For,’ Says Contessa appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Letter To The Editor: Why Do We Insist On Training Our Horses In One Direction?

“Imagine if you will” – Rod Serling in The Twilight Zone.

I start off with this famous phrase to get people to imagine professional track runners always training by exercising by going left only on the field track. Their competitions are left on the field track, always have been, so there would be no need to do anything else but train on that field track, always going left. Right? (See what I did there?)

Next, imagine your professional skaters — ice skaters, both figure and hockey. Anyone who has gone to an ice rink to do casual skating has been informed that after resurfacing the ice, skaters are to go the opposite direction. Imagine these professional skaters training in one direction only. Sounds absurd doesn't it?

So why, in 2021 are we in the North American racing world still only training to the left?

Horses, even Thoroughbred horses, are trainable to both sides. I've done it with every horse I ever owned. Any real horseman knows this. When you lunge a horse in the round pen, you certainly don't lunge only to the left, that would quite literally be insane and, dare I say, cruel.

A horse needs conditioning on both sides, just as a human does. And a horse, while a running athlete, is more comparable to that of an ice skater than that of a track runner. That blade that a skater glides on is comparable to the hoof on a horse. Such athletes need to be competent and more importantly physically prepared evenly or a weakness will gradually grow and hinder if not down right injure eventually.

North American race training has, for the most part, been flawed compared to that of the rest of the world. Globally, you can find horses training in all different directions on all manners of terrain and incline. I say “for the most part” because areas such as Del Mar and Ruidoso in the old days used to have horsemen who would take their athletes to the beach or into the mountains to exercise. This form of training has always been far superior and healthy for the horse as opposed to moving to the left, to the left, to the left.

Yes, there is back-tracking, but that isn't enough physical exertion to properly even out fitness on a horse. Training needs to be revamped so as to allow reverse training, just as your local ice rink makes you reverse directions.

It would be folly for me to go even further and suggest trying some reverse racing. I know they do it “over there” but that “is not here.”

For now, can we please just consider scheduling days of left exercising and right exercising? Who knows, maybe this crazy old guy will be right and that will lead to reduced injuries to the left foreleg.

–Robert Fox, Voice of the All American Futurity for 16 years, longtime announcer, former exercise rider and trainer's assistant.

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, please write to info at paulickreport.com and include contact information where you may be reached if editorial staff have any questions.

The post Letter To The Editor: Why Do We Insist On Training Our Horses In One Direction? appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post