Roll With Joe
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 34 of 34

Thread: 2016/17 Bathurst Gold

  1. #31
    aussiebreno
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by alphastud View Post
    Hi Wayne,

    Thanks for providing more information and raising some good points.

    If we just need to satisfy the Punter, and the Punter is happy with the current process, then we probably don’t need to review anything. So, only read on if you aren’t happy with the current process or you think that the Punter isn’t happy with it.
    -----------
    If we do put value on the process and the result that it produces then I think that the we are wasting time (literally) and money for not much benefit.

    Think about more reasons as to why a horse could (unexpectedly) perform poorly (“poor performance”). I don’t want to open the worm can however, a bacterial infection is 1 of many. So, my thinking is to check all factors (as much as you can) or don’t bother.

    Then we have the question as to whether the horse did (actually) perform poorly when taking all factors into account. E.g. I didn’t think that Ultimate Machete NZ performed poorly given that he death seated in record time [18th Feb 2017] however Purdon and the Authorities did.
    Then Ultimate Machete NZ raced the following week with a slightly easier run and records nearly an identical time [25th Feb 2017].

    I’m not sure if the track was faster, slower or about the same on the 25th Feb.
    What I don’t understand is why the Ultimate’s run on the 25th wasn’t queried and considered “poor performance” if the first run was?

    Critiquing Process:
    Post Race Review current process.
    (i) Trainer collects blood and sends it to Vet or Pathology.
    (ii) Vet receives results and forwards to the Trainer (and maybe the authority)
    (iii) Trainer or Owner pays the Vet fee.

    Problems.
    1. Lack of controls.
    E.g. The trainer could intentionally or accidently forward another horses blood sample for analysis. There isn’t a DNA check.
    2. Waste in unnecessary processing.
    Step out the process and it's easy to see the unnecessary steps that create more risk.

    Solutions.
    Without reviewing in great detail, some improved processes could be:
    1. Pathology emails trainers Vet and Authority at the same time.
    This adds another layer of control and potentially removes the need for the trainer to communicate to the Authority. This also gets the info to Authorities quicker and reduces processing time. – in addition, we won’t have to worry about Vet emergency’s.
    2. Authority takes blood sample @ races after the poor performance.
    The Authority can easily request their Pathology to email them and the Trainer the results. The Authority could invoice the Trainer or Owner or wear the cost. This saves the trainer or trainers Vet the time to take blood and transport it to the Pathology etc.

    Re your questions:
    1. “would you risk submitting something that couldn't be substantiated?”
    I can’t answer for all trainers. However, your suggestion that:
    “No doubt about it but not everyone's on the up and up unfortunately”
    might be the perception of some participants.
    2. Does there appear to be an inconsistency from what has transpired?
    I don’t know. As mentioned above, I think that the current process and result (i.e. post race review report) is nonsense and so the media report of same means nothing to me. In regards to the run of Divine State. I think that Divine State had a higher probability of getting sick or going off given:
    1. That he’s just a 2yr.
    2. The fast times that he’s running.
    3. The way that he’s raced.
    4. He’s not a machine.
    I could expand on all however you get the idea.

    Other questions that you could ask?
    Did Divine’s blood test indicators show whether the infection was present in the horse at the time of the race or where they a result of the stress from the race, trip home etc. ?

    Summary.
    It seems that we do "post race review" for the perceived benefit of Punters and because it could be the right to do. It’s difficult to know for sure as to what’s actually going on. Do we know if this really does give the Punter more confidence to invest or is it something that we’re doing just because we’ve always done it?

    I really do hope that Divine State returns bigger and better. Would be great for our new local stallion Tintin also. Shane and Chris etc. did a great job to get him as far as they did and so close to the Crown. Especially when you consider how hard it is to just get a 2yo to the races.
    I like your protocols regardless of the following comments.

    Ultimate Machete final run was a lot better - 25.5 last qtr so they went slower early, so there was a ceiling for him to go quicker whereas heat he reached the ceiling and paddled.

    I think the ones like Divine State are just a write off and forget from a punting perspective even if no explanation is given, however confirmation is nice.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year arlington will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Wayne Hayes
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by alphastud View Post
    Hi Wayne,

    Thanks for providing more information and raising some good points.

    If we just need to satisfy the Punter, and the Punter is happy with the current process, then we probably don’t need to review anything. So, only read on if you aren’t happy with the current process or you think that the Punter isn’t happy with it.
    -----------
    If we do put value on the process and the result that it produces then I think that the we are wasting time (literally) and money for not much benefit.

    Think about more reasons as to why a horse could (unexpectedly) perform poorly (“poor performance”). I don’t want to open the worm can however, a bacterial infection is 1 of many. So, my thinking is to check all factors (as much as you can) or don’t bother.

    Then we have the question as to whether the horse did (actually) perform poorly when taking all factors into account. E.g. I didn’t think that Ultimate Machete NZ performed poorly given that he death seated in record time [18th Feb 2017] however Purdon and the Authorities did.
    Then Ultimate Machete NZ raced the following week with a slightly easier run and records nearly an identical time [25th Feb 2017].

    I’m not sure if the track was faster, slower or about the same on the 25th Feb.
    What I don’t understand is why the Ultimate’s run on the 25th wasn’t queried and considered “poor performance” if the first run was?

    Critiquing Process:
    Post Race Review current process.
    (i) Trainer collects blood and sends it to Vet or Pathology.
    (ii) Vet receives results and forwards to the Trainer (and maybe the authority)
    (iii) Trainer or Owner pays the Vet fee.

    Problems.
    1. Lack of controls.
    E.g. The trainer could intentionally or accidently forward another horses blood sample for analysis. There isn’t a DNA check.
    2. Waste in unnecessary processing.
    Step out the process and it's easy to see the unnecessary steps that create more risk.

    Solutions.
    Without reviewing in great detail, some improved processes could be:
    1. Pathology emails trainers Vet and Authority at the same time.
    This adds another layer of control and potentially removes the need for the trainer to communicate to the Authority. This also gets the info to Authorities quicker and reduces processing time. – in addition, we won’t have to worry about Vet emergency’s.
    2. Authority takes blood sample @ races after the poor performance.
    The Authority can easily request their Pathology to email them and the Trainer the results. The Authority could invoice the Trainer or Owner or wear the cost. This saves the trainer or trainers Vet the time to take blood and transport it to the Pathology etc.

    Re your questions:
    1. “would you risk submitting something that couldn't be substantiated?”
    I can’t answer for all trainers. However, your suggestion that:
    “No doubt about it but not everyone's on the up and up unfortunately”
    might be the perception of some participants.
    2. Does there appear to be an inconsistency from what has transpired?
    I don’t know. As mentioned above, I think that the current process and result (i.e. post race review report) is nonsense and so the media report of same means nothing to me. In regards to the run of Divine State. I think that Divine State had a higher probability of getting sick or going off given:
    1. That he’s just a 2yr.
    2. The fast times that he’s running.
    3. The way that he’s raced.
    4. He’s not a machine.
    I could expand on all however you get the idea.

    Other questions that you could ask?
    Did Divine’s blood test indicators show whether the infection was present in the horse at the time of the race or where they a result of the stress from the race, trip home etc. ?

    Summary.
    It seems that we do "post race review" for the perceived benefit of Punters and because it could be the right to do. It’s difficult to know for sure as to what’s actually going on. Do we know if this really does give the Punter more confidence to invest or is it something that we’re doing just because we’ve always done it?

    I really do hope that Divine State returns bigger and better. Would be great for our new local stallion Tintin also. Shane and Chris etc. did a great job to get him as far as they did and so close to the Crown. Especially when you consider how hard it is to just get a 2yo to the races.

    G'day Richard,

    I saw Kev and Brenno's replies, sound good.

    The bit about "not everyone's on the up and up". A straw poll, rather than perception of some?

    As an example, what protocols would you follow for Castalong Shadow tonight? Would include a pre race blood...when? Sounds a bit like you wouldn't have entered him? I'm not going near that one.

    Not sure if bloods taken post race, on the night/day, would always show anything. Protocol may involve authority vet visiting stables to draw blood Sunday? Costs?

    Would licensing vets help?

  3. #33
    Senior Member Colt alphastud will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Richard .
    Location
    NSW, AUSTRALIA
    Occupation
    1300 078 237
    Posts
    113
    Horses
    TIGER TARA NZ $3,500, LIVE OR DIE USA
    Thanks Kevin, Brendan and Wayne.
    I'll leave some discussion alone. .
    --------------------
    A suggestion could be for Authorities to take post-race samples from horses that perform contrary to expectations.

    Timing - at the meeting 30 mins post race. We currently have vets (licensed etc.) that can draw blood etc. These vets usually assess these horses anyway and so it's not too much time for them.

    Assumption - this process can only work if sickness can be accurately determined from blood that is taken soon after the race.

    Possible? - I think that it is possible to accurately determine sickness from a post-race blood sample IF blood is near to its pre-race state soon after the race. ..On a quick look, I found 1 article link with some evidence *

    Divine State - Authorities took blood from Divine State post-race. This must have been taken for swabbing purposes only and so none of these blood samples were used to assess his wellness.


    *http://ajas.info/upload/pdf/15_214.pdf - All animals showed that RBC, WBC, and HCT .... were back to or lower than the initial basis (resting and 0 min) 30min after exercise. - There could be similar results on racing standardbreds? If so then wellness could be assessed from blood taken 30mins post race.


    Result - Therefore, we could remove the need for further blood analysis by the trainer or other parties on the following day etc.

    Outcomes -
    x - Trainers (&owners) save time and money.
    x - Trainers Vet is potentially bypassed.
    x - Punter is happy that the Authority has made a fast report with higher integrity.
    Last edited by alphastud; 04-05-2017 at 10:59 AM.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year arlington will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Wayne Hayes
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by alphastud View Post
    Thanks Kevin, Brendan and Wayne.
    I'll leave some discussion alone. .
    --------------------
    A suggestion could be for Authorities to take post-race samples from horses that perform contrary to expectations.

    Timing - at the meeting 30 mins post race. We currently have vets (licensed etc.) that can draw blood etc. These vets usually assess these horses anyway and so it's not too much time for them.

    Assumption - this process can only work if sickness can be accurately determined from blood that is taken soon after the race.

    Possible? - I think that it is possible to accurately determine sickness from a post-race blood sample IF blood is near to its pre-race state soon after the race. ..On a quick look, I found 1 article link with some evidence *

    Divine State - Authorities took blood from Divine State post-race. This must have been taken for swabbing purposes only and so none of these blood samples were used to assess his wellness.


    *http://ajas.info/upload/pdf/15_214.pdf - All animals showed that RBC, WBC, and HCT .... were back to or lower than the initial basis (resting and 0 min) 30min after exercise. - There could be similar results on racing standardbreds? If so then wellness could be assessed from blood taken 30mins post race.


    Result - Therefore, we could remove the need for further blood analysis by the trainer or other parties on the following day etc.

    Outcomes -
    x - Trainers (&owners) save time and money.
    x - Trainers Vet is potentially bypassed.
    x - Punter is happy that the Authority has made a fast report with higher integrity.

    G'day Richard,

    Only using Divine State (Saturday night) as an example, how would the process have been sped up? Irrespective of who and when the blood was taken, pathology wouldn't be available until Monday morning. HRNSW stewards announced the outcome Monday afternoon.
    "Assumption" Would be interesting to hear the views of the vets, for example even the vets State's contract as their vets, on analysis of bloods taken race day/night. After intense exercise, such as a race, I'd imagine there would be a number of readings other than WBC HCT RBC that may lead to ambiguous diagnosis. But I'm no expert there.

    Definitely not knocking anything that could improve integrity and processes but I question the ultimate saving to an owner. (Wouldn't a trainer pass the cost on to an owner?) The money/cost has to come from somewhere. If punters weren't happy with the current, maybe there would be increased turnover?? Otherwise it would need to be off set by something like reduced prize money?
    The bit about bypassing the trainer's vet? If your point is it would speed things up, not sure if it would every time. Are there any/many vets the Board/s contract that aren't in private practice as well? They'd get busy too.
    What would the scenario be for a $3000.00 stake meeting? A local vet is still used? They'd take blood, off it goes to a nominated pathology, the the Board's vet makes a diagnosis from the results?? In this scenario the the trainer/owner's vet is bypassed, he/she hasn't even looked at the horse, only the local vet on duty on the day.
    If there's another reason for bypassing the trainers vet, that needs expanding upon.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts