Derby Trail Forums
Page 4 of 6 « First < 23 4 56 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   NYT: Drugs & I Want Revenge (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32108)

Linny 10-07-2009 08:53 AM
Chuck, thank you for the detailed explanation. I understand joint injections and Adequan etc (my show hunter gets his hocks done before the show season each year) but is an antibiotic regimen that common in a horse healthy enough to be training as the favorite for the KY Derby?
I think that IWR was purchased before the Wood, meaing that a pre-purchase exam (PPE) must have been done at some point in March. I've seen PPE's done for average pleasure and show horses that reveal the start of tendon strain. I would imagine that if a buyer is paying for a multi million dollar share in a major Derby contender that the exam might be even more thorough-though I'm not sure in what areas.
Chuckles, most vets will tell you that they can do the exam and comment on the horse's current condition but cannot predict future soundness or even assess how he may handle a particlular job in the future. Unless a vet simply didn't do an ordered test or stepped well out of role and advised the purchase of a lame/unsuitable horse, it's hard to sue a vet for anything regarding a PPE.

Antitrust32 10-07-2009 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucklestheclown
Fascinating. What is lost here is that IEAH vetted him out and he was, presumably, fine, or fine enough. They should sue their vet and/or insurance company and not Lanzman. And yes, I'm a lawyer so I am fully qualified to speak on this matter.

why should they sue their insurance company? We dont tell people to buy horses or not, thats for sure.

Fearless Leader 10-07-2009 11:51 AM
This whole story is a joke. IEAH presumably vetted the horse before they bought him and were sufficiently satisfied to hand over the check. Whatever happened afterwards is what it is. Horses get hurt every day. This deal didn't work out for them so they want to blame everybody else. Witholding payments which they are contractually obligated to make, and not paying for the care and upkeep of the horse shows what kind of people they obviously really are.

They weren't complaining while in the winner's circle after the Wood Memorial were they ?

Antitrust32 10-07-2009 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
I am glad that you qualified this answer, because after the first two sentences, I would not have guessed that you were an attorney.

exactly. Unless the vet knew something and didnt disclose, which is just not probable, ya cant take any action towards the vet.

The insurance company??? :zz: we cant tell anyone whether they can or cannot buy any horse. We can only decide if we want to insure and at what rate & exclusions..

Cannon Shell 10-07-2009 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fearless Leader
This whole story is a joke. IEAH presumably vetted the horse before they bought him and were sufficiently satisfied to hand over the check. Whatever happened afterwards is what it is. Horses get hurt every day. This deal didn't work out for them so they want to blame everybody else. Witholding payments which they are contractually obligated to make, and not paying for the care and upkeep of the horse shows what kind of people they obviously really are.

They weren't complaining while in the winner's circle after the Wood Memorial were they ?
Exactly

Cannon Shell 10-07-2009 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
exactly. Unless the vet knew something and didnt disclose, which is just not probable, ya cant take any action towards the vet.

The insurance company??? :zz: we cant tell anyone whether they can or cannot buy any horse. We can only decide if we want to insure and at what rate & exclusions..
You know all insurance companies are evil and corrupt!

GenuineRisk 10-07-2009 03:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
I doubt the betting public would have any clue what to do with the information or how you would control the validity of the information in the first place? Wouldnt the ability to further abuse the system be greater by allowing trainers/owners/vets to create a shadow of a doubt on claiming horses by taking a bunch of xrays and injecting a bunch of things before a horse dropping in class runs, even if wasnt done or needed? How would you police the vets to insure that they were indeed doing the work on the horse listed?
I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.

GenuineRisk 10-07-2009 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
The standards of intellectually honest reporting are relatively low. I'd place the standards of writing on a higher level.
Very accurate observation. They wrote very eloquently in 2003 of how we were definitely in imminent danger from Iraq. (Wrong as all get out, but how beautifully they said it!)

I admit though, I did enjoy the On the Rail blog during Kentucky Derby season.

parsixfarms 10-07-2009 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.
Assuming that all this information deserves to be made public (a point that I don't concede), where would you put all this information? If we were to include a horse's vet records in the PPs, the DRF would probably cost $100. Also, a lot of the meds are given 24-48 hours before the race, so how would that disclosure work?

Cannon Shell 10-07-2009 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GenuineRisk
I'm bummed I didn't have time to get back to this thread sooner- entertaining read.

Lots of the betting public has no idea what to do with timed workouts, PPs, etc. Does that mean they should be ditched? It's up to the bettor if he or she wants to do the work to learn what the info means (as anyone who can read a racing form had to at one time), but at least make the information public, so they can use it if they want. No one forces a bettor to watch a horse's previous races, but the info is out there if they want it.

As for the possibility of abuse, geez louise, you will ALWAYS have cheaters. Or do you believe the idea for lip tattoos came BEFORE the idea of switching horses in races? You set up the rules and penalties for those who break the rules, and do the best you can to police. But in the end, is more information better than less? Absolutely, especially when you're talking about the bettors, who are the consumers of this product. It's up to them whether they choose to use it or not, but they deserve more information, not less.
I am not sure I agree that this should be public information. Does the NFL tell you what treatments or shots the players got each week? Hell they outright lie on a required injury list all the time. I understand that with people there are privacy issues but honestly I dont think that opening up vet records to the public will do anything but create more controversy where there isnt anything controversial. Not to mention who exactly is going to collect and disseminate the records? People who bet horseraces always feel slighted but when you compare the amount of info available now as compared to what was available in the past there is no comparison. In my other post what I was saying is that there is almost no thing that can be gleaned from the information so why bother? The fact that I dont think that anyone but the owner or trainer should be privy to the info is another topic.

Cannon Shell 10-07-2009 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Assuming that all this information deserves to be made public (a point that I don't concede), where would you put all this information? If we were to include a horse's vet records in the PPs, the DRF would probably cost $100. Also, a lot of the meds are given 24-48 hours before the race, so how would that disclosure work?
Can you imagine the lawsuits that will arise when a guy claims a horse who doesnt pan out and his lawyer starts picking apart the previous trainers/owners vet reports?

parsixfarms 10-07-2009 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Can you imagine the lawsuits that will arise when a guy claims a horse who doesnt pan out and his lawyer starts picking apart the previous trainers/owners vet reports?
I'd just sue the insurance company.

Cannon Shell 10-07-2009 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
I'd just sue the insurance company.
They are preying on our sick and elderly...oops wrong section.

This guy writes a nice piece on the article

http://fuguefortinhorns.blogspot.com...ork-times.html

Riot 10-07-2009 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This guy writes a nice piece on the article

http://fuguefortinhorns.blogspot.com...ork-times.html
If only Joe Drape would read the above.

parsixfarms 10-07-2009 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
If only Joe Drape would read the above.
Yeah, but now the NTRA/Breeders Cup announces a handicapping seminar as part of its "Tweeters Cup" at Santa Anita, and who do they have as one of their panelists? Joe Drape. I'm sure that his early season selection of (the supposedly drug-free) Mafaaz as his top Derby candidate qualified him for his spot on this panel. And we wonder why people question the leadership of the sport?

Cannon Shell 10-07-2009 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Yeah, but now the NTRA/Breeders Cup announces a handicapping seminar as part of its "Tweeters Cup" at Santa Anita, and who do they have as one of their panelists? Joe Drape. I'm sure that his early season selection of (the supposedly drug-free) Mafaaz as his top Derby candidate qualified him for his spot on this panel. And we wonder why people question the leadership of the sport?
The NY Times seemingly has an institutional policy that its writers must sensationalize at any opportunity any chance to knock the sport of horse racing. Drape has hardly hidden his own leanings with his "reporting", William Rhoden (who is a complete windbag) has taken numerous shots at racing over the years despite having virtually no knowledge of what he is talking about and one of their feature Bloggers is Jim Squires who recently wrote an book about racing full of factual errors, ridiculous innuendo and plain nonsense. Bill Finley was also a longtime racing writer for the Times and he rarely lets an opportunity to knock racing escape him.

I doubt the Times actually cares about racing enough to order an edict to knock it. But the tone of negative articles about racing that emanate from that rag is enough to make you take notice.

Antitrust32 10-08-2009 08:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
I'd just sue the insurance company.

LOL. I'm not falling for it this time! :p

Cannon Shell 10-08-2009 02:32 PM
http://thoroughbredbrief.wordpress.c...p-and-control/

Very well presented piece

freddymo 10-08-2009 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
There is nothing that is anything but routine on those vet bills. Close to $300 of that is for gastrogard which is an innocuous ulcer treatment. Over $500 is diagnostic work including multiple xrays, ultra sound and endoscopic examination.
From the top it looks he electrolytes/vitamins and fluids which is normal. Naquasone paste is used to reduce minor inflammation and was given in oral form. Liquamycin is an antibiotic. Panacur powerpack is a series of 5 dewormers. On 4/13 he was given what looks like a pre-work series of enzymes, Bute and Adequan which is a joint treatment that helps reduce the inflammation and pain of degenerative joint disease, but also to help stop the degenerative process while stimulating the production of new joint fluid and new cartilage components. Adequan would be given in the muscle in this case.

On the 14th he was given Lasix before the work and scoped afterwards. He must have had some inflammation as they ultrasounded the right leg. he also got another shot of antibiotics.

On the 15th he had his digital tendon sheath injected with what looks like a combo of Amikacin which is an antibiotic used with bacterial infections and possibly polyglycan which is hyaluromnic acid, glucosamine and sodium chondroitan and possibly vetalog which is a corticosteroid used to fight inflamation. He also got a shot of Baytril which is also an antibiotic.

He got antibiotics till the 21st when he worked and was scoped again.

The next week he only got vitamins

On the 28th he worked again and bled (see EIPH slight) and both ankles were injected with hyalrulonic acid.

The next day he got 1 shot of antibiotics and vitamins

The next day he received a DMSO jug, a shot of Robaxin which is a muscle relaxant and a shot of banamine which reduces inflammation.

The day before the derby he got a shot of bute, amino acids, and robinul and sodium iodide. The Robinul and sodium iodide are usually used as a prerace treatment for a bleeder.

The rest is self explanatory.
In all candor this reads like a menu at a Diner in Jersey..Chuck this horse was a mess. I think Michael jackson had less meds in him.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 AM.
Page 4 of 6 « First < 23 4 56 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.