Surgeries and procedures

[Caradoc]

Becrux won the first division of the Oceanside yesterday at Del Mar, paying $28.  The horse is co-owned by Barry Irwin\'s Team Valor Stable and most recently ran a very disappointing race in New York, beaten sixteen lengths in the Hill Prince.  According to the L.A. Times today, \"Irwin said that after the New York race, a breathing problem was discovered and a minor surgery called a myectomy was performed.\"

To take up a point made by Jerry and others in the wake of the Sweet Catomine scandal, can we achieve a consensus here that any surgery or procedure that is likely to have a meaningful impact on a horse\'s performance -- such as a myectomy -- should be disclosed to the betting public when the horse runs next?

[NoCarolinaTony]

I couldn\'t agree with you more Cardoc. How many more times are we going to get skunked on this particular issue. The whole Sweet Catomine deal cost me dearly. It\'s been happening for years and we continue to take it. Which would be more effective, letter to NTRA or TRack?

NC Tony

[TGJB]

I totally agree, and a letter to anyone that will not appear publicly is a waste of time. The only thing tracks respond to is pressure (invisible hand, carrying a hammer), not common sense.

Strongly suggest a letter to the editor of DRF or Bloodhorse. There\'s a very good chance Paulick would print it at BH, with DRF you never know.

[Frank]

Guys,

I think you are all out of line here. The betting public has no right to know what surgeries, procedures or vet work was performed on any animal. What the betting public should be entitled to is that there are rules and regulations that govern racing that are strictly enforced.

Frank

Frank,

I agree with you.

However, I think the sentiment is that the enforceable rules need to be changed to include the disclosure of \"certain\" medical procedures. Otherwise, insiders have too big an advantage in some races. Insiders will always have some information about the health of the horses that the rest of us don\'t, but it would be better for the game to minimize that to daily aches and pains etc... and not significant medical operations/procedures.

[Frank]

CH,

You confuse me. You start by stating that you agree with me, but then you don\'t. Let me ask a specific question. Let\'s say I have a solid old 50k claimer, the meat and potatoes of everyday racing. Do you want me to have to disclose the ankle chips or knee chips or tendon problems or a million other things that would devalue my property? There\'s a big poker game going on daily between owners at every track in the country that will stop if you begin to make stupid rules governing their behaviour. Just strictly enforce sensible rules and we players should be satisfied.

Frank

[Caradoc]

Frank:

There's a distinction between conditions on the one hand (the ankle chips, knee chips or tendon problems) and procedures or surgeries or similar treatments on the other hand.  All I'm proposing here is that the rules be brought in to the twenty-first century, so that horseplayers are given material information regarding the latter when they bet a race.  By material, I mean information a reasonable bettor would consider significant in making a wagering decision.  So I want to know (and I think it's reasonable to want to know) whether a horse had a myectomy since his last race, or was gelded, or was treated with Lasix for the first time, or spent the last few days in the hyperbaric chamber because there seems to be general agreement that all of those treatments or procedures can have a noticeable impact on a horse's performance.  I doubt that the fact a horse was re-shod yesterday or acted better after the dentist treated the horse last week is material by the standard above, but I\'d be interested if there is evidence is to the contrary.

Peter

Frank,

I agree that the current rules don\'t require lots of things to be disclosed and shouldn\'t, but I\'d like to see the list expanded \"a bit\". I\'m not a vet, but someone that is more informed could probably make a list of some medical procedures that would tend to have a huge impact on performance that I\'d like to know about.  

I definitely wouldn\'t want the daily and more routine aches, pains, and other problems and treatments disclosed for the reasons you describe. I agree that the claiming game is a big game of poker and should stay that way.

[NoCarolinaTony]

Quite honestly this is interstate commerce with inter track simulcasting. Governed by Federal Law and not state,although the fed has stayed hands off here and left it to the states. I\'m going to have to bone up on my law before I make my next comment on the subject, but if what you say is true Frank, then why disclose Lasix or Bute, shoe changes or other equipment change disclosures? It\'s to inform the betting public that changes have been made3 that may improve performance race over race.

I think there are certain medical procedures that also fit the category either positive or negative. The public I believe has a right to know. Just like enforcing the rules on medication that could enhance performance. Harness racing discloses far more infomation up front to the public than does Tbred.

NC Tony

[NoCarolinaTony]

Racing the banged up horse overvalued just to scam the next potential owner? Does this seem ethical? (I am not naive on the subject but I couldn\'t do that in my business) Also usually means some other type of performance enhancement is involved to keep an unsound horse running above it\'s value. Usually unsound horses find their racing level over time. Not collecting checks for the unsound horse should lead to drop downs. None the less, I beleive in as much disclosure as is reasonably allowed for the betting public to make smarter wagers is in order. Where would you draw the line.

NC Tony

NCT,

Just to be clear, the poker game I was referring to is the suspicious dropdown - where for example a horse that was just very competitive for 35K is suddenly entered for 20k-25k or a well bred horse drops from MSW into maiden claiming. A potential \"horse claimer\", has to decide whether the drop down means the current owners are looking to steal a purse or get rid of damaged goods.  I don\'t have too much of problem with that since that\'s the way the \"claiming game\" has been played for as long as I\'ve been round and handicappers can study trainer moves and play the same game with bets. It isn\'t a negotiated transaction where you would get to examine the horse. I think it\'s a matter of what we need to know and what we don\'t need to know, but I don\'t think we need to know about every ache and pain, ice bucket, swelling, and missed day of training. Just the bigger procedures.

[Frank]

Peter,

\"All I'm proposing here is that the rules be brought in to the twenty-first century\"

On this point I strongly agree. What we need is a list of allowed medications that is the same across all racing jurisdictions and a strong central racing governing body to stricly enforce the rules.

What I disagree with is the belief that players have a right to know how an owner/trainer has specifically treated his private property. As long as we believe there is nothing illegal being done that should be enough.

Frank

[davidrex]

     Franks\' Right. We are not entitled to minor surgical matters but it sure would be a gracious inclusion of information that track owners can start providing as a smoke screen to always disregarding the bettor.
     
     I\'m sure we could all add several more nuisance exclusions and make up a very reasonable knock-off list .

     What better time than now w/all the indians circling the wagons.

     Presenting a list to be published in all the tabloids[horse] and presented en masse would get our foot in the barn.



                               PARTYpokerON!

[richiebee]

The tone of this thread seems to be \"Give us the additional information and we will be more profitable handicappers/ bettors\". Not true. If it turns out that \"first time mylectomy\" or \"first time Doc Allday stifle snip\" become strongly predictive of victory, the mutuels on these animals would not be too wonderful.

Richie,

I agree completely on that one.  

CH