How do we make sure this never happens again?

[MaTH716]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

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

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

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...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

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.

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.

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

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.

Only the writer really knows how the Penn Nat GM responded, so I don't think there is any reason to call him out for needing to be more compassionate. He came off indifferent based on the way the story was written, and that's all we know. It's impossible to know how he really sounded unless that was explained in the story.

[OldDog]

Are there laws governing the administering of euthanasia solution? Can it only be injected by a licensed veterinarian?

[freddymo]

Don't the best trainers keep spikes around with meds at Penn Nat? Couldn't they just borrow some "works"?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Are there laws governing the administering of euthanasia solution? Can it only be injected by a licensed veterinarian?

Yes. Per Dr. Allday in the segment we had on ATR this morning about the incident.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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

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)?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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

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?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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

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

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?

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?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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)?

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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

I guess that line can be applied to the ambulance too

[Riot]

Originally Posted by helicopter11

I guess that line can be applied to the ambulance too

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.