Hasn't Durso tweeted the same thing each day this week?

@JohnDursoJr: Due to severe cold, high winds & out of abundance of caution for safety of jockeys/horses, @TheNYRA has cancelled racing at Aqueduct today.

Except it isn't severly cold or windy today. Makes you wonder if he is even here.

Steve, we have spoken several times over the air and disappointed that you would refer to the discussion as blather. In fact, I was responding to the press release issued by Rick Violette, Jr.

My suggestion was to have public statements from trainers offering an explanation to the public as to what happened on the track. That does not feel utterly pointless, reactionary, or hysterical to me. All too often, the track and surface are cited as the core issue as opposed to looking at overall horse health as the first issue which is of course a more difficult issue and leads to accountability which is ultimately what we want in the game.

I agree completely with your points here which is why the call for immediate press-release meetings between the horsemen's group and the NYRA management team seems hollow.

Scott..

No offense re: blather but it's just what came out in response to the posts and in association with the assorted social media suggestions/imperatives I'm seeing.

Specific to the NYTHA statement, you seemed particularly aghast at what was hardly a deferral to the track surface given this perfectly equitable Violette quote: "There may not be one right answer, but we will use every avenue possible and examine every angle to address this situation. Everything will be on the table, from finding an independent track surface expert to come in and examine the inner track to a thorough reexamination of every procedure and protocol in place before a horse leaves the starting gate"

That could hardly be characterized as a response limited to possible track surface issues. It covers everything that can be involved from entry box to starting gate to the running of a race. Basically, everything the task force covered in 2012.

As to "public statements" from trainers, what exactly do you think they will have to say minutes after losing a client's or their own horse? Do you think that any trainer in NY or anywhere else sends out horses they deem iffy to get around that day? Until a necropsy reveals the specifics of a fatality, the trainer may very well be as in the dark as the track/state vet that watched it jog earlier in the day and gave it the OK to run. So it is absolutely pointless, reactionary and hysterical to call for trainer press conferences to 'explain' a breakdown.

You say the statements from horseman and NYRA ring hollow, but what are they supposed to say other than 'we'll keep examining every aspect of operations and try to limit possible at-risk horses from running'? They're already doing that.

Everyone needs to be as vigilant as possible from horsemen/owners, to state regulatory vets, to track surface management.. But here's the rub. No matter how well all do their jobs, horses are going to break down and die. We want as few to die as possible, but it's still going to happen. Accept it as a basic tenant of the sport, or don't. But to rashly point fingers and call for sky-is-falling emergency measures solves nothing and only adds to an atmosphere of ignorance and derision.

:tro:

I just don't see why every breakdown seems to go back to the trainer and said owner for using that trainer. Some horses can come out of races and be ready to run quicker than others, just seems crazy that if a claimed horse breaks down, it's always the trainer's fault for running back to quickly or they should have known and then the owner's fault for employing said trainer. It's a bit much and really a shotgun approach.

It happens and is extremely unfortunate.

Aqueduct to proceed with caution.


http://sdhorserace.com/2015/01/13/aq...of-breakdowns/

i don't think anyone thinks it's always the trainers fault. however, we all know there are times that trainers enter a horse for a tag, hoping to get rid of said horse. they hope for the best, that it makes it thru the race and someone takes it off their hands so they can get rid of the issue.

And sometimes it's too obvious. A turf race where the horse uncharacteristically fades, One work at Palm Beach Downs (obviously pointed to something @ GP), a ship up to Ocala for a rehab stint off that work (presumably), followed by a drop to the lowest level at Tampa - all in the space of 60 days:

A horse routinely handling conditioned 40K runners in NY 60 days ago, dropping to 8N3L. At Tampa. :rolleyes:






Like you said, hope for the best

I'll never forget, there was a Paul Pompa horse named Basilone, who was bought for six figures. He entered him for $12,500 in his debut at GP, caught an unusually strong field and ran 2nd with a BSF in the high 70's, then was shipped to Tampa to run for $8,000 in his next start.

The horse broke down and it was just as predictable as it was appalling.

IMO when it's that obvious an owner/trainer is trying to get rid of a horse, someone at the track should intervene and subject the horse to much more than just the regular pre-race look from the vet. Basilone didn't deserve to die just because Pompa made a lousy investment.

burna dette is the one i will always remember.

Apologies as my post was not to derail the topic, but rather make the point.

TBD will answer for the breakdowns on their track. It appears to me that I've seen more at this point in the season than I've seen in the past.

And that is meaningless - its part of the game. Sometimes they go through the meet with minimal instances; other times it's more noticeable.

But it isn't the track, or the people, or the horses, or any *one* thing. Sometimes they take a bad step - it's that simple.


It should be though, the responsibility of the track to pull out a fine-toothed comb when a red flag shows up in their entry box.

Can't disagree with you there but significant drops can also just be a shot by owner/ trainer to win a race and to also mitigate losses. There is a place for that in the game as well. It will happen, but I agree that when it does happen those that claim said horses are always a bit leary.

Can also happen at the smaller tracks like a Finger Lakes when running a decent turf horse on dirt which isn't said horses preferred surface towards the end of the meet, say November December time frame. Your left with a decision on what to do with that turf horse, ship down South for the winter, lay up for the winter, or drop on the dirt and try to win a race, earn the money and then lay up until spring and pay for lay up with the purse earnings. You play to win the game within reason

Canceled again today due to frozen patches on the track.

Completely agreed. Coming back to our discussion from earlier this week, the inner track racing surface will remain a point of very close scrutiny, particularly after the horsemen's statement and the subsequent meetings.

Hopefully, we will not get rain with the temporary warming expected this weekend - if the surface has frozen spots, you can be sure that the surface will get really loose with thawing and we will have problems with unsafe conditions involving the base.

I acknowledge that my views were clearly in the minority regarding trainer statements earlier this week. Yet despite being in the minority, the number of posters who have cited tremendous claiming dropdowns as an indication that something must be amiss with the horse should be noted. Wait, something amiss with the horse? Certainly, I do not have the experience to differentiate an "ouchy" animal from one who will be a danger to others on the far turn, but there seems to be a tacit acceptance that horses are wildly dropped for a reason. To me, that is a trainer and owner flag. This has been a well-known handicapping "angle", but it points to, well, something potentially wrong.

While the claiming game can be a wide open free-for-all, since the 2012 Report called for a upper clamp placed on claiming purses tied to claiming price, should we implement a downward limit on the amount of a dropdown on the claiming ladder? Perhaps a limit of a 50% claiming price slash? No more than two claiming classes at the home track?

i don't think there's a tacit acceptance. no one thinks a horse should be run if unsound. a trainer shouldn't risk a horse, along with the safety of riders and other horses, just because they want rid of a horse.
perhaps a steep drop should necessitate a thorough exam by a vet before they let the horse in the gate.

Ran a well beaten 6th, and was claimed.