When perusing a recently-released series of wiretaps in the federal doping case, one passage stuck out to me. This set of transcripts is of conversations between trainers Michael Tannuzzo and Jorge Navarro, both of whom would later enter guilty pleas to felony charges of drug adulteration and misbranding related to doping horses in their care.
Navarro has begun serving his five-year federal prison sentence, after which his attorneys have said he'll almost certainly be deported. Tannuzzo was sentenced in November to 27 months in prison.
When wiretap evidence is entered into the court record by the prosecution, it sometimes includes an exact transcription of relevant portions of dialogue and other times includes the transcriber's summary of less-relevant parts of the conversation. (Note: JN is Navarro, MT is Tannuzzo, UI is unintelligible conversation.)
The portion that jumped out at me read:
“Michael Tannuzzo calls Jorge Navarro.
JN talks about how he wants to fire his vet because the vet won't milkshake. MT says the vet is a pussy. JN wants to shove the $400 shot up the vet's ass.
JN: What's up, Mikey?
MT: You called me?
JN: Yeah. Man I'm f******g [UI] now I-I almost fired this f*****g vet, man.”
The vet isn't named, and it's not clear whether Navarro ever convinced him or her to milkshake the unnamed horse. What is clear though is that if this person wasn't going to do what he wanted, he was going to consider that a fireable offense.
In the transcripts that have been released so far, it's clear Navarro is fascinated with the process of milkshaking horses. The procedure involves running a nasogastric tube to deliver sodium bicarbonate and other minerals straight to the horse's stomach with the goal of reducing lactic acid build-up in muscles during exercise and thereby improving stamina. It's been illegal for years and many of his co-defendants warn Navarro in these transcripts that it's not something just anyone should try doing, because an improperly-placed tube can kill a horse.
Clearly, Navarro did not care.
The exchange reminded me of a truism that most people at the racetrack know, but people away from it may not – the veterinarian/trainer dynamic on the track is, in many cases, broken. Many trainers, not just Navarro and his co-defendants, seem to see veterinarians as employees whose main purpose is to act as vending machines for prescription drugs. This isn't limited to the use of performance-enhancing substances or procedures like milkshaking – people have talked openly in this business about trainers who see the veterinarian pull up in their truck and give them a list of horses and which joints they want tapped with which drug combinations.
This was reiterated during a round table discussion at the recent American Association of Equine Practitioners convention. The session I was sitting in on was filled almost totally with veterinarians who were assembled to talk about the relationship between the regulatory vet and the private practitioner on the racetrack. As these things often do though, the discussion amongst the audience and panelists wandered to other challenges with veterinary oversight at tracks.
One audience member there that day was not a veterinarian. Monti Neal Sims is a trainer and usually comes to the AAEP conventions alongside his wife, veterinarian Dr. Kate Papp. Sometimes Neal goes to sessions with her and one of the panelists recognized him. I don't remember what their original question was to him, just that he was asked for his input on how to improve the care for horses on the backstretch.
“You need to protect the veterinarians from the trainers and owners,” he told the room. “because they're going to take advantage of those vets.”
My dynamic with my horses' veterinarians is very different. I want them to tell me what they think is ailing the horse and provide a few options of how we can try to address the problem. I think treatments should be a joint decision between me as the owner and the vet. I also try to learn from my vets along the way because I think it's my responsibility as someone who cares for horses to try to become more knowledgeable about it, and because the vet went to school and a lot of debt in order to know more than I do.
Part of the reason I probably think about it that way though, is because my veterinarians are usually charging me examination fees that are much higher than the cost of any drugs they may dispense to treat an illness or injury. I'm conditioned to think of these experts as experts because their time and consideration of my horse have a price tag attached.
The racetrack has, by all accounts, become an anomaly in this regard. At some point years ago, racetrack vets began waiving examination fees or trip charges to see and diagnose horses on the track. Eventually, it became largely true that vets were charging a trainer for the injections it would take to address an arthritic ankle, but not the lameness exam they conducted before doing radiographs to decide the horse had arthritis.
You can see how it may become a slippery slope. If it costs a trainer little to nothing for a veterinarian to provide them a diagnosis, it might start feeling more like the vet is really just offering an opinion. Everyone has opinions. Trainers have opinions. And trainers spend more hours with their horses than their vets do. If it does cost a trainer to have the vet dispense a drug though, that drug starts to seem like the more valuable thing that vet is offering. It also probably raises the temptation for trainers to try finding cheaper versions of drugs themselves, drawing them to illegal online compounders willing to sell prescriptions to people without veterinary licenses.
Veterinarians have really backed themselves into a corner on this one. Once that pricing model became accepted, it's hard to imagine how it could change. If one vet decided to try to turn the tide, trainers would probably fire them and go to their competitor. At the same time, I've heard track vets complain (probably rightly) that anything that's going to result in higher bills going to trainers is going to encourage many of them to try to handle problems themselves, cutting the vet out of the loop entirely. That's not good for horses, either.
The requirement of some states (California and Kentucky being the first) that a private vet examine a horse and certify its condition prior to race time has, by some accounts, done a little to shift the status quo as it gave vets the opportunity to charge for at least pre-race exams. The racetrack safety regulations of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority do require that “the medical judgments of the Veterinarian are independent and are not dictated by the Trainer or Owner of the Horse” but doesn't give a standard for how that is to be measured.
It's a tough time to try to tell anyone they're not paying enough to care for their horses. Everyone from the feed man to the farrier is raising rates, because they have to. We all feel it, whether we have horses on the track or in the dressage ring. But I have to wonder – if you're not willing to pay an expert to help you make a horse healthier, happier, and safer, what are you doing in the horse business?
If the racing industry wants its culture of horse care, it's going to need to start with the way it's willing to compensate a dwindling and precious resource – its veterinarians. And everyone is going to have to buy in.
The post Voss: The Trainer/Veterinarian Relationship In Racing Is Broken appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.
