How do we make sure this never happens again?
 

Oh, god, that's sickening and sad.

The track has to have a vet there during hours they have their track open for training. Period. Seems that's clearly encoded in their own rules.

That is truly sad. Penn National should be ashamed of themselves. I will never bet that track ever again

Penn National is a cesspool. This is one track that should be shut down.

Very sad.
I bet you if one of the slot machines broke down, someone would be there in less than an hour to fix it.

I'm not sure why the trainers vet isn't getting the bulk of the blame here?

I agree. But the Penn National spokesman should have been a bit more compassionate and not come off as indifferent, even though we know that's exactly what he is.

I hope NYRA never loses control in NY because if you think an casino operator gives a dam if a race horse needs a lethal injection...

Why? By being indifferent he is sure to fuel the people who write letters, start campaigns and protest horseracing period. That plays right into their hands as they try to denigrate the sport as much as possible so that they can end racing.

The fact is that there are lots of places where horses train where a vet emergency may take an hour or more to be addressed. The horses regular vet should have someone that covers when he isnt there.

:zz: He was the one that ended up sending a vet to euthanize the horse. Where wasn't he "covered"?

The question is, are tracks responsible for having a vet (paid by the track) on the premises for on-track emergencies during training and racing hours, or not (just during racing hours here)?

If he was covered there would be no story. Isn't that kind of obvious? Do you think this is the first horse to ever breakdown on a Sunday morning at Penn National? He wasn't covered because had he been he wouldn't have to have been contacted, the vet covering for him would have already been there

Why would tracks pay a vet to do nothing virtually all of the time?

Ah, you mean the vet is responsible because he wasn't physically at the track, even though he did have another vet covering for him on his day off.

In that case, maybe the trainer should make sure there's a vet on the track before he takes a horse out?

Gee ... so horses who break legs during morning training hours can be euthanized appropriately, rather than suffering?

I'll put you in the, "No, tracks are not responsible for having a vet on the premises during training hours" category, I guess. Even though they are required to have a horse ambulance readily available. Weird.

How does a vet cover for another without being physically at the track?

Do you not agree that the attending/regular vet has a responsibility to see that his horses are cared for when he/she isn't not there?

I guess that line can be applied to the ambulance too

Why do you think the entirety of this equine practice is on-track work?

He did. That's who euthanized the horse.

Do you not think the trainer had a responsibility to his horse, to ensure a vet was around if needed?

It applied to me for the 10 years I was a paramedic. Strangely, nobody complained about paying me to "wait around" for their accident or heart attack.

If tracks agree they need a vet and a horse ambulance available during racing, they should consider doing the same during training hours.

Why wouldn't the vet who cares for the horse 365 days a year be responsible for that? You really think that the horse ambulance and track vet are similar issues?

So the track should pay a vet to do virtually nothing on the odd chance that the practicing vet and every other private vet happens to be busy at that very moment that a horse breaks down?

Gee. It appears that would have been a good thing for this poor horse. What number of horses do you think it should apply to?

Again, the question is, should a track have a horse ambulance and vet available on-track during training hours or not? I guess Chuck says no. I would say yes.