Unlike several weeks ago, when Jones sounded off on the raceday Lasix ban issue, this time I’m behind Jones’ decision 110 percent.
I could not disagree with Jones’ thought process more than when he stated that he would refuse to buy horses under the auspices of any jurisdiction that would prohibit horses from being treated with Lasix on raceday.
With that message, Jones was telling proponents of the ban he would do anything within his power to stem the tide of the proposed ban of the diuretic on raceday.
We think that Jones, and other high-percentage trainers, should be sending a different message to the betting public and sports fans; that the industry will do whatever it can to gain and regain their trust.
As with anything that relates to integrity, the sport’s stand on medication, legal and otherwise, is the #1 issue in racing and it will continue to be until the Thoroughbred industry shows the world it’s really serious about cleaning up its act.
However, I do stand with Jones, and any other horseman, who is railing against the New York State Racing and Wagering Board proposed edict to ban the cooking of oats—for goodness sakes—at Saratoga somehow is a security issue.
How absurd, really. How much advice did the SRWB ignore from the practitioners they consulted on this—if they consulted anyone, that is?
And I hope nobody ever tells The Chief about this idea; this news could send him back to the hospital. What are the chances any state regulatory agent ever walked the shedrow with Allen Jerkens at feed time?
While proposing this security measure for Saratoga, did anyone bother to ask whether the feeding of dry oats is a healthy regimen? Horses don’t digest dry oats very well. In fact, they could get colic as a result. Colic can cause a horse to founder. Founder causes horses to die.
Jones said the primary reason for cooking oats is to help horses digest their food easier. He’s still gnawed by the time when, during the detention barn era a few years back, he needed to get the stewards’ permission to feed his horses yellow corn.
According to the DRF story, Jones was irritated when regulators gave Doug O’Neill a hard time when he was cooking oats for I’ll Have Another outside the Belmont Stakes detention barn.
And now the SRWB is considering instituting a detention barn for the Travers and other important stakes at the upcoming Spa meet, in addition to testing jockeys for alcohol.
This is known as political expediency. While the Belmont detention barn might have been a good idea in that it would help to safeguard the integrity of a potentially controversial Triple Crown champion, its institution at Saratoga is unnecessary overkill.There’s enough lead-up time to ensure that the clumsy procedures put in place at Belmont would work better this time around, but upsetting a horse’s routine unnecessarily does the animal--and the bettor--no favors.
“The board consistently seeks to improve security and safety measures for horses at New York’s tracks,” a spokesperson said recently. Here’s a thought; increase the number of security guards, or install video surveillance and forget the detention barn.
“There’s no reason for it,” a horseman said recently. “No reason for having it. There’s plenty of testing in place to catch anyone cheating.”
The problem with that thinking, of course, is that testing is under-funded, standardized rules are non-existent and the process of keeping up with cheaters arduous and time consuming. But make no mistake, there’s tons of room for improvement.
Jones said his decision not to accept the 11 stalls he was allotted was not a boycott on New York racing; he will ship in to race.
But Jones is making a statement that when it comes to well-meaning but ill-informed regulators, enough is enough, that decisions having an adverse effect on an animal can do as much damage to form as medication.
So police the back-side, and the security personnel if you must, but leave the care and welfare of the animal to the people who live with them 24/7/365.
Racetrack professionals have earned the right to do a job the best way they know how.
01 Jul 2012 at 02:55 pm | #
Preach,
When it was announced that this years Breeders Cup Juvenile for 2 yr olds would not permit Lasix use, I was happy.
On Saturday at Churchill they ran the first big 2 yr old race of the year the Bashford Manor. All but one ran with Lasix. Now I’m sad that the Trainers and owners don’t get it. Not much is changing.
The detention barn does not help the horses or bettors. Continued Lasix use doesn’t help them either.
01 Jul 2012 at 04:30 pm | #
I still maintain that the final straw for O’Neill and Reddam was the oats issue at BP prior to the Belmont Stakes.
After which, they then said (in no many words) “The heck with it. It’s minor tendenitis. He could run. But that’s our ‘out’. Scratch. We’ll sell him off to the highest bidder. No more aggravation.”
01 Jul 2012 at 04:33 pm | #
Sorry. My writing today hasn’t been up to par.
Make that, “in so many words.”
Although, since they didn’t publically say it, the word “no” does apply, in an odd way.
01 Jul 2012 at 04:40 pm | #
Don, I just can’t be that cynical; we’re talking legendary status here. Besides, the shock wave therapy indicates there was a soft tissue issue. And that’s what a tendon is.
Cat, you do see some horses race without Lasix but few and far in between; it’s going to be a battle to the wire.
02 Jul 2012 at 04:28 am | #
JRP,
If a trainer has 40 or more horses, how do you install video surveillance to ensure the integrity of the process? Answer? You can’t.
For that matter, a barn with far fewer than 40 horses would be virtually impossible to monitor without a camera on each stall, and even that cannot show every detail of management.
The solution is a well-managed detention barn run by reasonable people with the knowledge and ability to adjust for individual needs.
No argument that the late imposition of the Belmont barn and the cooked oats issue were mistakes, but the bottom line is it can be done right and should be done right.
No matter how much horsemen and their enablers complain, the bottom line on the five-year NYRA security barn was this. Two trainers fell off the face of the earth in terms of winning races.
People have asked me before who were those two trainers. My answer remains the same to any who might ask again. You would know if you followed the results of horsemen before, during, and after the barn’s operation. DRF’s Formulator Web trainer records made it a breeze for anyone willing to do the work.
02 Jul 2012 at 07:58 am | #
NK, in no particular order. As for those two trainers, I think I could guess but it would be a counterproductive rumor. However, other perceived supertrainers kept rolling right along.
I have no idea how technology works. But I refuse to take “can’t” for an answer. People above my pay grade should find a way.
As you stated, horsemen will always complain, like those at CDI who objected to the late post times last weekend necessitated by the near 100-degree temps wave. Good thinking on Churchill’s part. Business notwithstanding--and I’m sure it adversely affected simulcast handle--I’d like to think that the animals benefitted some for the decision.
02 Jul 2012 at 04:30 pm | #
Don,
I understand, it’s not an easy solution and finding a way can be daunting. There is no answer that I can see beyond increased security--not the dog-and-pony type put forth by the Getnick & Getnick people when NYRA was trying to protect/secure its franchise.
They tried to show they were on the job by making normal, everyday, legal routines complicated--like making sure media had credentials times two to get into the Oklahoma Training Track barn area when the public--read anyone--could park there for a fee in the afternoon. Who was watching them?
I just feel for the sake of the horses and the betting public that a mandated security barn is the answer.
02 Jul 2012 at 04:46 pm | #
Don,
Not really sure what the right answer is myself. The thing that makes sense to me is meaningful security--not of the Getnick & Getnick dog-and-pony variety.
I truly believe that a mandated detention barn is unfair to the animals and betting public alike.
02 Jul 2012 at 07:52 pm | #
Thinking out loud: My initial reaction was, “We’ve fallen in love with technology’s wonderfully easy answers, i.e., “If Las Vegas can afford to install security monitors over the tables to apprehend the cheaters, why can’t we do the same for security barns?”
As seen on TV, which also has all sorts of laughably easy answers.
Then I crossly thought, well, Las Vegas can well afford to do this. Racing can’t
Then the thought of the AQ casino profits came to mind.
Q: But who WATCHES these cameras?
A: The same dolts who thought that it was a good idea to stop the trainers from cooking oats.
The technology is only as good as the people who run it. The scenario of instantly bored, minimum wage security guards watching the videos was appalling.
They’re not watching the glamorous activities of a Las Vegas gambling floor; they’re watching flies landing and taking off on heaps of dung. Once in a while, a human flits across the screen, pushing a broom.
At any rate, no answers here. Just musing, not being amusing.
02 Jul 2012 at 08:24 pm | #
Nick,
I think I know who one of the trainers was and he had other problems beside the detention barn. Personally,I think the detention barn was a waste of time and money. Dutrow is still there. Rudy Rodriguez should probably give Allan Jerkens a training class. Other trainers are still doing the same or better than before the detention barn.
03 Jul 2012 at 06:49 am | #
aaron,
Two things.
1) I hear you about the problems with a detention barn. However, to suggest it was a waste because it didn’t solve all the problems in racing is akin to saying police should stop using finger prints because DNA is better.
Racing needs a comprehensive strategy to prevent cheating. A detention barn is just one part, along with out-of-competition testing, requiring accurate medication and treatment records for all horses, legitimate penalties, etc.
The ultimate tool would be to put all medications and treatments done on the racetrack in the hands of vets employed by the track or state racing commission, ala what is done in Hong Kong. Prohibit anyone else from bringing or possessing any other medication, nostrum, drug, etc, on to track grounds, and then punish severely anyone who violates the rule. Hong Kong tests for more drugs than the US, and there is almost never a positive any more, because the crooks figured out they would get caught.
2) Re: the trainer you believe you know. The person in question stabled in several venues. The person’s winning percentage fell below 10% in NY, but remained above 25% in every other venue where the stable’s horses raced, and continued at that high level till the other problems I believe you are referencing began to take effect.
03 Jul 2012 at 09:01 am | #
Nick,
I agree with you on the Hong Kong procedure,but the Detention Barn still was a waste of time and money. It didn’t properly serve the trainer. It did nothing to help the bettor. If you remember the Oscar Barrerra years,he was stopped without a detention barn. Peter Ferriola and Gasper Moschera disappeared without a detention barn,so one or two trainers having their win % go down doesn’t prove the detention barn was effective.
03 Jul 2012 at 04:01 pm | #
All,
A few facts you should be aware of.
1. The Racing and Wagering Board has made no decisions regarding increased security protocols for the Saratoga meet.
2. There never has been a “proposed edict to ban the cooking of oats.” Prior to the Belmont Stakes, there was a simple miscommunication between a couple of trainers, the Stewards and the Director of Security over how/where oats could be cooked to address concerns of the Fire Marshal. The miscommunication was promptly resolved and all horses that preferred cooked or warmed oats were able to enjoy them unabated. One other note: For at least the past 17 years, NYRA’s Barn Area Violations Panel (BAVP) has always banned oat cookers on the backstretch as a fire safety violation. Licensees who violated this provision were fined by the BAVP and the cooker’s heater coils were confiscated by NYRA security and the Fire Marshal. The steps taken by the Racing and Wagering Board at the Stakes Barn prior to the 2012 Belmont Stakes worked around the prohibition to ensure that horses were able to have warmed oats.
3. If the Racing and Wagering Board does put forth additional security protocols for the Saratoga meet – or any other meet – it will do so in consultation with equine safety experts (the protocols for the Belmont Stakes were created in consultation with Frank Fabian from the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau and John F. Wayne, Executive Director of the Delaware Thoroughbred Racing Commission, who has more than 40 years experience in horse racing and served as Director of Security for Churchill Downs and Santa Anita for several years). The Board also welcomes input and suggestions from trainers and horsepersons. The intention for any increased security measures, as it was for the Belmont Stakes, is to ensure the safety of the horses and riders and the preserve integrity of the sport.
4. The issue of testing Thoroughbred jockeys for alcohol was introduced as a standard rule in January and has been in practice since April. The rule can be found here: http://www.racing.ny.gov/Sec4040.1-4044.2.php#4042.6
Thanks,
Lee Park
Director of Communications
New York State Racing and Wagering Board
04 Jul 2012 at 07:40 am | #
“you do see some horses race without Lasix but few and far in between”
When I started doing this, and probably when you did too, Lasix was banned at the NYRA tracks as was any horse that had bled in two races. The rest of the world, as I understand it, runs without the stuff. So, actually, many of us have seen plenty of horses race without Lasix.
Pretending otherwise doesn’t help.