No, but then I'm biased. I own Musical Delight and it was a great win ! N.Jack can drive
And Nathan might have won more races if he had a lugging pole on himself.
Matt Rue also deserves credit for his drive on the McArdle gelding Mackeral to place 2nd from 4 fence. Go McArdle.
Divine State was san excellent run considering his lead up runs and that he may have been sick. I hope that he bounces back.
Does anyone know if pathology results are required to be emailed to authorities or are they happy with trainers to call and summarise the results?
Originally Posted by alphastud
Matt congratulating Geoff
Re pathology/vet results - would you risk submitting something that couldn't be substantiated?
Was a great win Anne, hence the comparison.
Hi Wayne, I Found this on the end of Menangle Steward report.
Bathurst Saturday 25th March 2017 – Race 7 RACE 7 – Oberon Quarries / Trash-Pak Bathurst Gold Crown Final (Group 1) – 1730 Metres
Veterinary Surgeon Dr A Argyle confirmed a report from Trainer S TRITTON in regards to blood test results taken from short priced favourite DIVINE STATE, after a disappointing performance on Saturday night and concerns with the horse following a post-race veterinary examination. Dr Argyle advised results showed the horse to be suffering from a bacterial infection, which would have contributed to the poor performance. S TRITTON advised it was his intention to spell the horse. After taking into account the horse’s poor performance and results of the blood tests, S TRITTON was advised the horse will be required a veterinary certificate of fitness, as well as being required to trial satisfactorily on at least 1 occasion prior to racing again. He was also advised, under the HRNSW Spelling Guidelines the horse is now stood down from racing for a minimum period of 28 days.
A bacterial infection would explain the performance.
Wayne, we're required to send vet certs into authorities if we scratch a horse (without a vet cert) if we're scratching it due to illness. It appears then to be inconsistent if the same level of evidence isn't required for a post race performance review. (if this is the case? - I wasn't sure if it's standard procedure)Matt congratulating Geoff
Re pathology/vet results - would you risk submitting something that couldn't be substantiated?
If we carried your logic forward then the authorities should be happy for us to scratch a horse provided that we can substantiate that it is sick if a vet were to assess it. Some participants would be ok with this as, after all, the trainer has noticed that the horse isn't healthy in the first instance. Most times, the vet is just validating the fact for the benefit of authorities and participants.
Last edited by Messenger; 03-30-2017 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Name
G'day Richard, My original supposition would you risk submitting something that couldn't be substantiated? Submit meaning convey, communicate, which might be a phone conversation with the stewards, in this case, the morning/days after the race.
You could have pathology results sent to you and your vet and as timing would have it, the stewards speak to you before your vet has confirmed the results...the vet may be attending an emergency. Or the stewards require the results to be looked over and confirmed by the authority's vet.
Does there appear to be an inconsistency from what has transpired?
As for my "logic", re pre race scratching’s, you've taken quite a liberty there. I'm imagining you're thinking the cost of a vet validating might be unnecessary at times? No doubt about it but not everyone's on the up and up unfortunately.
And I think validation is required for the punters more so than authorities and participants.
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.
Last edited by Messenger; 03-31-2017 at 11:21 PM. Reason: Wayne not Warren
Richard, I'm thinking that the can of worms would be chemical.* As was the case with Divine State, when a favored runner performs poorly they are usually swabbed - I think most punters realize horses are not machines but want to know that authorities are checking that a horse has not been got at (even if such an occurrence is pretty much a thing of yesteryear)
I think the average punter is therefore catered for / satisfied and it is just a few pro punters that want proof regards to anything else
Greg Sugars was a Champion harness racing person
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
