Letter To The Editor: More Transparency Of Racehorses’ Medical Records Is Needed

Jerry Brown, in an op/ed recently published in the Thoroughbred Daily News, stated his belief that horses running in stakes races were not running true to form possibly because of not running on Lasix in those races. Brown pointed out that these horses may have been scoped post-race, but very often the fans, handicappers, and the public have no idea what the results of these scopes are.

This issue is not related to just scoping a horse looking for bleeding, but in all facets of a horse's medical care, including when it comes to the death of a horse that occurs on the grounds of a racetrack or training center. Racing woefully fails this transparency test, a fact known for years.

I know that there are legal hurdles to making this information easily accessible. Medical records kept by a veterinarian can only be released to another party with the consent of the owner of the animal in question. This type of language is present in basically every Veterinary Practice Act in every single state in the country. I also know that there is an easy fix to the issue as well. All that is needed is to add a simple line or two on every state racehorse owner license application that reads something akin to, “I hereby give consent for the medical records of any horse that I have a full or part ownership in to be released or transferred to a party requesting them.”

It should just be a required part of being able to obtain an owners license. All it takes to make it happen is the desire for change.

I know one of the arguments against providing full transparency of medical records and fatal injury data has always been that the public will not understand it, and the animal rights crowd will try to twist it to fit their narrative on things. Well, that argument is correct on both counts. You know what else is correct though? It is taking the time to make the information easy for the public to understand and fighting back against the misinformation.

The industry can no longer rely on the old refrain of “You just don't understand the industry” when presented with any question or argument against racing. Take the time to explain what we all “don't understand,” especially to followers of the sport who have the greatest chance of becoming fans.

It is something I have come to call the “10-80-10” rule that I have learned from working in the non-profit realm. 10% of people are always going to think racing is wrong, inhumane, and should be forever banned. They are never going to see a different point of view or accept explanations of data that are not fitting their narrative. On the other end of the spectrum there are 10% of people who think nothing needs to change in the racing industry and there really is not a problem at all. They will not agree to changing anything even if the data points to a need for it. Neither extremes are where racing needs to focus (even though both often shout the loudest and we all know what wheel get the grease).

What racing needs to focus on is the 80% in the middle that are asking to be heard but are also willing to sit down and discuss things in a productive way that benefits the sport and its fan base. Providing not only transparency but an explanation about that transparency in a manner that people can understand builds the trust needed to bring new blood into the game.

–Dr. Bryan Langlois, past president of the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association, board of directors of Animal Care PA and Thorofan

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: More Transparency Of Racehorses’ Medical Records Is Needed appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

The Friday Show: Moonlighting On The Back Of A Pony

News editor Chelsea Hackbarth may be best known to readers of the Paulick Report for her feature stories and outstanding coverage of major races, but around Kentucky racetracks she's respected for her skills as a pony person escort, taking valuable Thoroughbreds out for morning training or afternoon races.

In this edition of the Friday Show, bloodstock editor Joe Nevills coaxes Chelsea to talk about some of her favorite moments in her “other” job, which she describes as taking horses to the starting gate “in as calm and safe a manner as possible with a 1,200-pound animal that is sitting on go. So it can be a bit of a challenge now and again.”

Chelsea took two-time European Horse of the Year Enable to the track for morning training at Churchill Downs and to the starting gate for her stirring victory in the 2018 Breeders' Cup Turf. She also recalls the “amazing amount of sound” she experienced ponying Uncle Sigh in the 2014 Kentucky Derby post parade after the singing of “My Old Kentucky Home” ends and the crowd erupted in a massive cheer. And of course there were those times she got to ride one of the most famous of the racetrack ponies, Harley.

We're sticking with the “homer” theme for Star of the Week, a 3-year-old Daredevil filly who won a $16,000 maiden claiming event recently at Gulfstream Park and is entered in the Hallandale Beach, Fla., track's third race on Friday.

A $16,000 claimer is Star of the Week, really? What we didn't say is that Sister Is Devil was the first pinhooking project for Chelsea and her business partner, Steph Settles, who joins Joe and Chelsea to talk about that experience buying the Daredevil filly as a January yearling and selling her for a modest profit nine months later. Joe rounds out the show with our weekly Toast to Vino Rosso and a profile of one of the arriving foals from the first crop of the son of Curlin.

This is one episode any horse lover won't want to miss. Watch below.

The post The Friday Show: Moonlighting On The Back Of A Pony appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Orseno: ‘Wrong And Naïve To Think No Damage Is Being Done To Horses Just Because They Didn’t Bleed Through The Nostrils’

The following statement was released by trainer Joe Orseno on Thursday, following reports from the Kentucky State Veterinarian's office earlier this week: 

Published reports and social media have had some incorrect information about what did and didn't happen to my horse Imprimis, who finished second by a nose to Bound for Nowhere in Keeneland's Grade 2 Shakertown Stakes Saturday while racing without the anti-bleeder medication Lasix. I want to set the record straight:

Thank God the considerable blood coming from Imprimis' left nostril after the race was not pulmonary hemorrhaging. It also was not from what has been erroneously reported as being a cut on his nose sustained when he broke through the gate prior to the start. Imprimis does have a sizable bump on his nose – about six inches from his nostril – from where his head apparently hit the gate, but he did not sustain any cuts. The endoscopic examination that I had my private veterinarian conduct did reveal trace levels of Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhaging. I'm just so thankful that it wasn't more severe.

The bleeding episode apparently was like being punched in the nose, when you can develop a nose bleed without being cut. So Imprimis must have banged his head pretty hard and it went unnoticed.

I also don't retract what I told journalists after the race. I'll say it again right now: It's not good for the industry what they're doing forcing horses, particularly older horses, to run without Lasix in stakes races. And apparently that's not just one trainer's opinion. I didn't know so many people had my phone number, all the horsemen who called or emailed me and said, “thank you for speaking up” — trainers I don't even know. Someone in California called me out of the clear blue and said “thank you, someone had the guts to say something.” I don't look at it that way. At the time, it wasn't about guts, it was about being very upset over my horse. I've been doing this 44 years and it's not just my livelihood, it's my life.

The state vets at Keeneland did a very thorough examination on my horse in the morning. I'm sure they looked at him after he broke through the gate, saw no cuts, saw no head abrasions, no blood in his nose then. They put him back in the gate and let him run. If they had seen anything, I'm sure they would have scratched him.

The first thing I do after a race is look at their legs, and make sure everything is OK. When I subsequently saw his nose and blood just pouring off his left nostril, you have to assume the horse bled.

When the press asked me about the race, the first thing I said was, “Well, I think my horse ran a great race, got beat by a very good horse.” I said, “He beat me, I beat him (in 2019 Shakertown), only noses separated them.”

Then I started on the bleeding, because I thought my horse bled horribly. That's when I made my statement that someone has to explain to me why we're making horses bleed, older horses that have run on Lasix their whole life, and now all of a sudden you're going to penalize the best horses in the country. It's not good for the game, when we can stop it with an easy fix.

My veterinarian's endoscopic exam of Imprimis showed that most of the blood was from banging his head. He did have traces, a trickle down his throat, showing that he did bleed a little in the trachea. We were very lucky. Now he might still be on track for his next race. I was very pleased for the owners that I didn't have to put him away for four or five months. He's bright-eyed today and looks great. He just has a bump on his nose.

There are many horses that bleed significantly but not always externally. It is wrong and naive to think no damage is being done to horses just because they didn't bleed through the nostrils. It is also deceptive for those who are trying to label an EIPH episode only by visible blood from the nostrils. How are you going to tell an owner this horse is going to only run four times this year instead of eight or nine because I need more time in between to heal them up because he bleeds and we can't use Lasix? They are going to start to get disgusted, and horses will be hurt if they return at all. Owners are not going to be as excited about buying horses and racing if they can't run them more than four times a year.

I am on the board of the Florida HBPA. We are scoping stakes horses – which must run without Lasix at Gulfstream Park – and we're paying for it so we hopefully can all learn something and together make informed and intelligent policy decisions from transparent data going forward. I'd say overall that the overwhelming majority of these horses are bleeding to some degree. The numbers aren't good. Do we really want to do this to our horses? I sure don't.

The post Orseno: ‘Wrong And Naïve To Think No Damage Is Being Done To Horses Just Because They Didn’t Bleed Through The Nostrils’ appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Clancy: Will Racing’s Public Trust Survive The Actions Of Bad Actors?

The start of 2021 hasn't been particularly positive for the sport of horse racing, acknowledges Joe Clancy, editor of the Mid-Atlantic Thoroughbred. A quartet of incidents stand out: the Gordon Elliott photo, the suspension of jockey Alexander Crispin over weight disparities, a trainer with 45 listed medication violations on the ballot for the Hall of Fame, and a horse with two failed drug tests earning an Eclipse Award.

Racing is “at some kind of crossroads, again or still depending on how you look at it,” Clancy wrote in a recent editorial.

“At its core, racing exists because of a public trust,” he continued. “Those outside the industry need to trust that the people inside the industry are doing the right things. The questions are pretty simple.”

Those questions the public should be able to ask of racing include: Are the horses well cared for? Is the wagering above board? Are rule-breakers penalized?

Looking at the 2021 actions of just the above four members of the racing industry, those questions become harder to answer. At the end of the day, Clancy wrote, the most important question is whether racing's public trust will survive the actions of the rule-breakers and bad actors.

“That's the most important question, and I can't answer it,” he concluded.

Read more at the Mid-Atlantic Thoroughbred.

The post Clancy: Will Racing’s Public Trust Survive The Actions Of Bad Actors? appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights