CD - anybody see this?

[otisotisotis]

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story...tbETtRiXQ.cspx

Other that the "supertest", whatever that is....this just seems like a little PR to me.

[robfla]

Field sizes in many races will also be limited to 10 horses

that should increase handle.

[Kasept]

Here is the far more elaborate Press Release from CDI...


Edited press release

Churchill Downs Inc. has announced a series of new rules and policies designed to enhance the safety and welfare of jockeys and horses. The measures will be in place at Churchill Downs racetrack in advance of the this year's Kentucky Derby and will include standardized third-party testing of track surfaces and comprehensive testing of all winning horses for more than 100 prohibited drugs.

The safety initiatives will be implemented at Churchill Downs effective opening day of its 2009 spring meet on April 25, and will be phased in at all other company racetracks – Arlington Park in Arlington Heights, Ill.; Calder Race Course in Miami Gardens, Fla.; and Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots in New Orleans – by the start of their respective 2010 race meets.

In development for nearly a year, the “Safety from Start to Finish” initiative is designed to incorporate new health and wellness measures, as well as long-standing safety policies and standards, under a single formalized initiative to serve as a blueprint for all CDI facilities.

The key safety initiatives that will be in place at Churchill Downs prior to the Kentucky Derby are as follows:

--Independent, standardized third-party testing and monitoring of track surfaces;
--“Supertesting” of all winning horses for more than 100 performance-enhancing drugs;
--Age restrictions requiring Thoroughbreds to be at least 24 calendar months of age before becoming eligible to race;
--The freezing and storage of equine blood and urine samples to allow for retrospective testing;
--The banning of steroids;
--Limits on the number of horses allowed to compete in certain races;
--The prohibition of “milkshaking”, which results in excessive levels of total carbon dioxide in Thoroughbred racehorses;
--Prohibiting the transport of horses from CDI facilities for slaughter;
--The banning of unsafe horseshoes, including front shoe toe grabs longer than two millimeters;
--The use of low-impact riding whips with limited usage rules;
--The presence of on-site medical personnel, equipment, and state-of-the-art equine ambulances;
--Immediate online access to jockey medical histories for emergency medical personnel;
--$1 million in catastrophic injury insurance coverage for jockeys;
--Mandatory and uniform reporting of equine injuries to the Equine Injury Database System, thereby assisting in the compilation of statistics and trends to improve safety conditions around the country;
--A professionally designed and installed safety rail on the inside of the dirt course;
--Mandatory usage by all jockeys, exercise riders and other on-track personnel of safety vests and safety helmets that meet internationally acknowledged quality standards;
--3/8-inch foam padding on all parts of the starting gates;
--Significant financial support for equine retirement programs;
--Inspection of all horses by regulatory veterinarians prior to and following all races;
--Review of security procedures around barns and other racetrack backstretch areas;
--Continued maintenance of protocols for the treatment of horses that have been injured during racing or training, to ensure the most humane treatment possible; and
--Mandatory, independent, and complete necropsies of any horse that dies as a result of an injury sustained while racing or training at Churchill Downs.

“Based on historical records, we believe there has only been one catastrophic injury among the 1,710 horses that have competed during the 134 runnings of the Kentucky Derby, but even one is too many,” said Bob Evans, president and chief executive officer of Churchill Downs Incorporated. “While the Kentucky Derby is the world’s most important horse race, we want to implement changes that will improve safety not just for that race, but for all of the jockeys and horses that compete annually in the over 4,000 races conducted at our four racetracks.

“Over the past year, a great deal of important work and study has occurred on safety issues in our industry," Evans continued, noting that the announcement was the result of cooperation among many different entities within the industry, including The Jockey Club, Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, Breeders’ Cup, Keeneland Race Course, NTRA, American Association of Equine Practitioners, and horsemen. "We are optimistic about the NTRA’s new Safety and Integrity Alliance program. We hope the NTRA is able to certify all three Triple Crown tracks prior to this year’s Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes races.”

"We wholeheartedly endorse the comprehensive program outlined today by CDI to enhance safety and integrity at its racetracks," NTRA president and CEO Alex Waldrop said in a statement. "Today's voluntary step is an important act of leadership by Churchill Downs and reflects the unprecedented level of commitment by everyone within the industry to examine every aspect of racing. The NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance anticipates commencing the racetrack accreditation process at Churchill Downs within the next 30 days."

The following information provides additional detail on some of the key safety rules and policies announced March 2:

Track surface testing

CDI is expanding its existing testing of track surfaces to implement regular, standardized, third-party testing of its racetracks, including a battery of laboratory tests of track surfaces and ground-penetrating radar to ensure track consistency and integrity. CDI has secured the services of the world’s top track surface researcher, Dr. Mick Peterson, a University of Maine professor of mechanical engineering who has developed an innovative robotic hoof device that duplicates the force and speed of a horse as it runs on a racetrack. Data generated by these and other tests will help to ensure that CDI tracks maintain safe and consistent track surfaces for both horses and jockeys. The company is also a founding member of and financial contributor to the new Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory, which is identifying safe practices for the future by facilitating and advocating measurements of track safety effectiveness.

Drug “supertesting” of all winning horses

The winning horse in every race at CDI tracks will undergo a battery of “supertests” recommended by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association (“TOBA”). The TOBA “supertests” screen for more than 100 drugs – far more than in standard testing.

Age restrictions

For the purposes of competition, all Thoroughbreds foaled in the Northern Hemisphere – regardless of their actual month and day of birth – turn one year older on Jan. 1. CDI is instituting a policy by which Thoroughbreds must be at least 24 calendar months old before they are permitted to race, in the hopes of promoting healthy and strong equine athletes that can enjoy long, competitive careers. Previously, Thoroughbreds competing at CDI tracks were allowed to race at the official age of 2 years, regardless of their actual date of birth.

Sample freezing for retrospective testing

CDI will begin the practice of storing frozen blood and urine samples of racehorses to allow for retrospective testing in the event of suspicious circumstances, an initiative currently being funded by The Jockey Club. The company will work with the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission to adopt the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (“RMTC”) program for frozen storage and retrospective “supertesting” as necessary.

Steroids banned

CDI has adopted the Association of Racing Commissioners International Model Rule on androgenic anabolic steroids that was based on RMTC recommendations. This rule effectively eliminates the use of all anabolic steroids in the training and racing of Thoroughbreds.

Limits on number of horses allowed to compete in certain races

CDI has extensively examined the issue of “field size,” or the number of horses permitted to compete in any given race. The studies have taken into account the age of the horses competing, the length of the race, the surface on which the race is conducted, the position of the starting gate relative to the track’s first turn, the width of the racetrack, the radius of the racetrack’s turns, and other dimensional attributes. For many years, CDI tracks have limited the field size of certain races based on these variables. After further review, Churchill Downs will now limit field sizes in additional races, including 4 ½-furlong dirt races. Those races will now be limited to 10 starters instead of the previous maximum of 12. This rule, implemented due to the short run into the first turn, will be in effect as of the 2009 spring meet at Churchill Downs. In addition, Arlington Park and its horsemen will consider starting 4 ½-furlong races at the 5-furlong marker and finishing them at the sixteenth-pole to allow for a longer run into the first turn.

After thorough analysis and consultations with owners, trainers, and jockeys, the field size for the Kentucky Derby will remain unchanged at a maximum of 20 horses, a limit that was put in place after 23 horses competed in the 1974 Kentucky Derby and 21 horses competed in 1981.

“As in all sports, there’s an inherent safety risk involved in horse racing,” said Jim Gates, general manager of Churchill Downs racetrack and the leader of the “Safety from Start to Finish” initiative. “We firmly believe that the measures and policies we’ve put in place will help to minimize that risk and better ensure the safety and well-being of our athletes. We’re passionate about this commitment, and we’ll continue, as an industry leader, to do what’s right to reduce injuries and improve the integrity of the sport.”

The safety initiatives announced as part of “Safety from Start to Finish” will continue to evolve. “There are a number of other important safety initiatives that are still in development, and that we hope to launch later this year,” Gates said. Those include:

--Out-of competition drug testing;
--The introduction of safety reins;
--Jockey health and wellness programs;
--Uniform licensing of those involved in racing; and
--Ongoing safety and welfare education and training of those involved in racing.

“We also have recognized that we need to do a better job of communicating to our fans and the general public what our industry has done and is doing to maximize safety,” Gates added. “To that end, we have created an interactive, educational ‘Safety Center’ that is currently on display at Churchill Downs’ Gate 17. The Center utilizes audio, video, and actual material and equipment samples to educate racetrack guests about the numerous policies and procedures in place to ensure the safety, security and well-being of horses, riders, and on-track personnel. The Centers may be added at other CDI racetracks at a future date.”

The final cost of the safety measures has not been finalized, but is expected to exceed $1 million annually.

For more information about the Churchill Downs “Safety from Start to Finish” initiative, please visit the Safety Center at Gate 17 at Churchill Downs racetrack, or log on to www.churchilldowns.com/safety.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Do you think the "supertest" will catch any "supertrainers?"

That would be super!!!

They're all over it.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Arlington Park and its horsemen will consider starting 4 ½-furlong races at the 5-furlong marker and finishing them at the sixteenth-pole to allow for a longer run into the first turn.

Interesting....Looks like something to exploit until the masses figure out how well speed will do in this type of race

[justindew]

Have they "buried the lead" here? Or was this once contentious issue resolved previously?

Originally Posted by Kasept

--$1 million in catastrophic injury insurance coverage for jockeys;

[Riot]

"prohibiting horses younger than 24 months old from racing."

Interesting. Chuck?

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Riot

"prohibiting horses younger than 24 months old from racing."

Interesting. Chuck?

How many horses could this affect given where CDI's tracks run? It will probably only affect the month of May and maybe a little of June but during that time, they are only carding 1 or 2 two year old races per book anyways.

Seems like a policy written for attention if anything

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Riot

"prohibiting horses younger than 24 months old from racing."

Interesting. Chuck?

While I don't think its a bad idea in principle, how many horses would it truly exclude? It's not like you see a ton of may foals running in april. 28-30 months might actually make an impact on horse longevity.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by philcski

While I don't think its a bad idea in principle, how many horses would it truly exclude? It's not like you see a ton of may foals running in april. 28-30 months might actually make an impact on horse longevity.

True, that in actuality, considering CDI's date, few would probably be affected.

However, this stance is completely opposite the recommendation of the bulk of scientific knowledge we currently have indicating that early racing imparts soundness and longevity to a TB racing career.

I believe it to be a bad idea for the health of the racing TB in both principle and practice.
---------------
-- Independent, standardized third-party testing and monitoring of track surfaces;

If they use some physicists and biomechanical engineers, good. If somebody's brother starts a company, bad.

--“Supertesting” of all winning horses for more than 100 performance-enhancing drugs;

Great

--Age restrictions requiring Thoroughbreds to be at least 24 calendar months of age before becoming eligible to race;

Bad

--The freezing and storage of equine blood and urine samples to allow for retrospective testing;

Good

--The banning of steroids;

Eh, big deal, little effect

--Limits on the number of horses allowed to compete in certain races;

Good idea perhaps for some baby races

--The prohibition of “milkshaking”, which results in excessive levels of total carbon dioxide in Thoroughbred racehorses;

Hey, aren't we supposed to be there already?

--Prohibiting the transport of horses from CDI facilities for slaughter;

Nice, but who will take them? What ancillary support groups will be developed, engaged, financed? How will CDI take responsiblity for enforcement of this?

--The banning of unsafe horseshoes, including front shoe toe grabs longer than two millimeters;

Good

--The use of low-impact riding whips with limited usage rules;

Good

--The presence of on-site medical personnel, equipment, and state-of-the-art equine ambulances;

Should be there already, no?

--Immediate online access to jockey medical histories for emergency medical personnel;

Great

--$1 million in catastrophic injury insurance coverage for jockeys;

Say what? <vbg> ???

--Mandatory and uniform reporting of equine injuries to the Equine Injury Database System, thereby assisting in the compilation of statistics and trends to improve safety conditions around the country;

At least someone is cooperating!

--A professionally designed and installed safety rail on the inside of the dirt course;

Great.

--Mandatory usage by all jockeys, exercise riders and other on-track personnel of safety vests and safety helmets that meet internationally acknowledged quality standards;

Isn't that supposed to be there already?

--3/8-inch foam padding on all parts of the starting gates;

Ditto?

--Significant financial support for equine retirement programs;

See no horses to slaughter, above. Funding source?

--Inspection of all horses by regulatory veterinarians prior to and following all races;

Good

--Review of security procedures around barns and other racetrack backstretch areas;

Will anything change?

--Continued maintenance of protocols for the treatment of horses that have been injured during racing or training, to ensure the most humane treatment possible; and

Good, but again, should be state of the art already ...

--Mandatory, independent, and complete necropsies of any horse that dies as a result of an injury sustained while racing or training at Churchill Downs.

Great, if one can legally enforce (CDI vs insurance company vs owner) - who will finance? Where will it be done? Who will transport body and pay to get it to LDDC?

[Cannon Shell]

--Independent, standardized third-party testing and monitoring of track surfaces;

You already have this. It is called trainers and riders. They dont listen to us, why pay someone not to listen to them?
--“Supertesting” of all winning horses for more than 100 performance-enhancing drugs;

Knock yourself out CDI!!!
--Age restrictions requiring Thoroughbreds to be at least 24 calendar months of age before becoming eligible to race;

Total waste of time, absolutely strict for PR
--The freezing and storage of equine blood and urine samples to allow for retrospective testing;

Since CD doesnt test the samples, how exactly are they going to store the smaples for further testing and who is going to do the testing?
--The banning of steroids;

Already done by the state.
--Limits on the number of horses allowed to compete in certain races;

Based upon the last 2 meets at CD, not exactly an issue
--The prohibition of “milkshaking”, which results in excessive levels of total carbon dioxide in Thoroughbred racehorses;

They dont already prohibit milshakes?
--Prohibiting the transport of horses from CDI facilities for slaughter;

Not much of an issue for tracks like CD, plenty of steps down the ladder till they get DF'ed
--The banning of unsafe horseshoes, including front shoe toe grabs longer than two millimeters;

Ridiculous

--The use of low-impact riding whips with limited usage rules;

I would love to see the "limited usage rules"
--The presence of on-site medical personnel, equipment, and state-of-the-art equine ambulances;

They already have this
--Immediate online access to jockey medical histories for emergency medical personnel;

This would seem to be the jockeys problem. CD cant legally demand access to medical records can they?
--$1 million in catastrophic injury insurance coverage for jockeys;

Why not
--Mandatory and uniform reporting of equine injuries to the Equine Injury Database System, thereby assisting in the compilation of statistics and trends to improve safety conditions around the country;

Dont see how this can be enforced. I will not turn over any information on any of my horses injuries unless the names are withheld and the owners give me permission to do so.
--A professionally designed and installed safety rail on the inside of the dirt course;

They already have this
--Mandatory usage by all jockeys, exercise riders and other on-track personnel of safety vests and safety helmets that meet internationally acknowledged quality standards;

This rule is like 20 years old
--3/8-inch foam padding on all parts of the starting gates;

They already have this
--Significant financial support for equine retirement programs;

define signifigant
--Inspection of all horses by regulatory veterinarians prior to and following all races;

This is already done
--Review of security procedures around barns and other racetrack backstretch areas;

The topnotch security squad they have in place needs review?
--Continued maintenance of protocols for the treatment of horses that have been injured during racing or training, to ensure the most humane treatment possible; and

What exactly does this mean?
--Mandatory, independent, and complete necropsies of any horse that dies as a result of an injury sustained while racing or training at Churchill Downs.

So does this mean I cant do my own necropsies?

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

--“Supertesting” of all winning horses for more than 100 performance-enhancing drugs;

Knock yourself out CDI!!!

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying it's a good idea, a bad idea, pointless, or none of the above?

On another note, I find it interesting that people slam "the industry" for being so bad on PR, and then mock steps like this by calling them "obvious PR stunts."

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by justindew

I'm not sure what this means. Are you saying it's a good idea, a bad idea, pointless, or none of the above?

On another note, I find it interesting that people slam "the industry" for being so bad on PR, and then mock steps like this by calling them "obvious PR stunts."

A good idea.

I would rather see PR on actual advances than the great majority of things on this list. But good PR isnt a bad thing. Honestly the thing that irks me the most is the shoe issue which is completely misguided. And I will be interested to see what kind of whip regulations that they will try to put in.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Riot

True, that in actuality, considering CDI's date, few would probably be affected.

However, this stance is completely opposite the recommendation of the bulk of scientific knowledge we currently have indicating that early racing imparts soundness and longevity to a TB racing career.

I believe it to be a bad idea for the health of the racing TB in both principle and practice.

Obviously I have very little knowledge of TB development, but I have read the scientific knowledge you refer to. I was just pointing out how irrelevant the 24 months thing actually is because of (a) when CD actually runs and (b) how very few May foals run in April at Keeneland and even fewer June foals run in May at CD (or Calder or Arlington, for that matter.)

[justindew]

We've all heard the argument that goes something like this:

"Horses that race as two-year-olds go on to have longer careers than horses that do NOT race as two-year-olds."

In the case of the horses that race at age two, isn't it possible that the same "good fortune" that made the earlier start possible also responsible for the fact that they have longer careers?

In other words, maybe these horses are just healthier to begin with. Which would mean the statistics are misleading.

Just a thought.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by justindew

We've all heard the argument that goes something like this:

"Horses that race as two-year-olds go on to have longer careers than horses that do NOT race as two-year-olds."

In the case of the horses that race at age two, isn't it possible that the same "good fortune" that made the earlier start possible also responsible for the fact that they have longer careers?

In other words, maybe these horses are just healthier to begin with. Which would mean the statistics are misleading.

Just a thought.

The whole 2 yo racing thing is misleading. Some horses are ready to run at 2, some arent. The problem is when people push them before they are ready, regardless of age. Too many people have opinions about young horses racing without any actual knowledge. It just sounds like a good theory. Using the no 2 year old racing theory, you would eliminate youth and high school sports in humans.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

Obviously I have very little knowledge of TB development, but I have read the scientific knowledge you refer to. I was just pointing out how irrelevant the 24 months thing actually is because of (a) when CD actually runs and (b) how very few May foals run in April at Keeneland and even fewer June foals run in May at CD (or Calder or Arlington, for that matter.)

Like a politician "creating" a problem to which they already have a solution to.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Supertrack!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by justindew

We've all heard the argument that goes something like this:

"Horses that race as two-year-olds go on to have longer careers than horses that do NOT race as two-year-olds."

In the case of the horses that race at age two, isn't it possible that the same "good fortune" that made the earlier start possible also responsible for the fact that they have longer careers?

In other words, maybe these horses are just healthier to begin with. Which would mean the statistics are misleading.

Just a thought.

Well, it's not an "argument" I'm referring to, as much as the peer-reviewed research that actually looked at work, starts, age, then drew conclusions.

The work that the AAEP uses to support it's position statement on the racing of young horses?