2016/17 Bathurst Gold

[arlington]

5 heats for both the Tiara and Crown. In 2010/11 there were 7 each.
Pretty good numbers this year considering.

A Tritton/Tritton double this year(?)

[Messenger]

Even better still, there were 6 heats of the Tiara - you are allowed to make a counting error when you post at 4.36am

[Beltane]

Both the Bracelet and the Chalice for the 3 year olds are also well supported:

Chalice: 4 heats - 47 starters
Bracelet: 3 heats - 35 starters

The Gold Crown final's evening is always a top night out at Bathurst.

[Messenger]

A Tritton/Tritton double this year(?)

The draws have made young Chris Geary's task a bit trickier

http://www.harness.org.au/news-article.cfm?news_id=32986

[Beltane]

MYSWEETCHILLIPHILLY (10) in the Tiara is the Tritton's racer that could be in a wee bit of bother if the also unbeaten LADY CHATTO (6) gets out quickly and holds the lead.

In the Crown, DIVINE STATE (8) will highly likely adopt similar tactics as to it's heat, by staying wide early, letting the others do the jostling, and then come around at a rate of knots, and as the late Chuck Berry sang "that's all she wrote".

[Messenger]

Castalong Shadow had won its last 2 starts as an Odds On favorite and starts $61 fixed in Vic

[The Escape Club]

Castalong Shadow had won its last 2 starts as an Odds On favorite and starts $61 fixed in Vic

Nice if you or anyone else got some of it.

[Greg Hando]

The writing was on the wall for Divine State after he stopped in his heat you can't keep going to the well and expect the bucket to be full every time

[aussiebreno]

The writing was on the wall for Divine State after he stopped in his heat you can't keep going to the well and expect the bucket to be full every time
Hope you layed him @ $1.04 with that wall you were reading from.

[Gtrain]

You couldn't. But I did get enough at $1.08. I read the writing.....

[alphastud]

Castalong Shadow was advertised for less than $5,000 as an un-named weanling. He is by a sub $5k service fee sire - Shadow Play.

Geoffrey owned, trained and drove Castalong to win the coveted Bathurst Gold Crown (Group1).

A real outstanding accomplishment given that Geoffrey trained 2 winners last season and probably doesn't have the support, facilities, technology etc. of some of the trainers that he beat.

If Maximus Red and Divine State are better horses then did Geoffrey outdrive Geary and Turnbull?

We hear so much about why trainer x is more successful because they are more thorough, work longer or harder etc.

We haven't heard much about Geoff. - Maybe we'll see a big story soon.

I'd love to hear Geoffrey's story. Does anyone know more?

[trish]

When questioned in regards to the performance of short priced favourite DIVINE STATE, driver C GEARY explained he went into the race very confident given the horses previous performances. He said although his early sectionals were quick he was not concerned and the horse travelled well in the middle stages. He added, approaching the 500 metres he expected the horse to respond as per usual, however, he immediately realised it was under pressure and at that stage he tapped it up and pulled its gear. He further stated that he applied some pressure rounding the turn, however as he was concerned for the horse he allowed it to run to the line under its own steam. A post-race veterinary examination found the horse to be very distressed with a delayed recovery, high temperature and a high heart rate. Trainer S TRITTON expressed his disappointment with the performance of the horse and his concerns with the manner in which it appeared post-race. He added it was his intention to take blood from the horse for testing and would advised of the outcome. On Monday morning (27th March), he advised the horse appeared to be doing better, however the test results were no back at that stage. Connections were advised a veterinary clearance of fitness will be required prior to the horse racing again and pending the results of the blood test, further embargoes may be placed on the horse.
Post-race samples were taken from the winner CASTALONG SHADOW, the second placed MACKERAL and the un-placed favourite DIVINE STATE.

[aussiebreno]

Terrific effort.

If you would like some reading.

http://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/4554525/golden-shadow/

http://harnessnews.com.au/2017/03/night-of-firsts-at-bathurst/

http://www.harnessbred.com/bathurst-snippets/

[DRUIDRACING]

Not much of a write up....zero on australian harness racing website. Im sure the headline were written but when an outsider (hobbyist) out drives the "professionals" it dont rate.

Like all small outfits we can only afford 1 or 2 horses and keep them as we are not able to continually turn them over.

[Messenger]

Thanks Brendan, the Western Advocate was the pick of them

(Strahan does have internet but as for Lonely Planet talking about it being 'the best little town in the world' - nice enough but it wouldn't even get a start)

[alphastud]

Thanks Brendan. I mainly view harness.org.au and sometimes harnesslink and harnessbred. However, missed it.

Stephen - My father placed 3rd in the first ever Bathurst Gold Crown and so it's one G1 event that I love to follow. I thought that it was dissapointing not to see anything about the results. MY SWEETCHILLIPHILLY NZ was impressive also considering how she won and that she's by a new season sire.
Looking at Brendans' links, G Simpson is no spring chicken. . A headline like "Old Codger shows up genY to claim Bathurst jewels" might rate better than you think.

Furthermore, harness racing have said that they want to increase racing longetivity which means that they actually want less turn over. It's up to them to improve handicapping and therefore competitiveness of more horses at more levels.

[Toohard]

When questioned in regards to the performance of short priced favourite DIVINE STATE, driver C GEARY explained he went into the race very confident given the horses previous performances. He said although his early sectionals were quick he was not concerned and the horse travelled well in the middle stages. He added, approaching the 500 metres he expected the horse to respond as per usual, however, he immediately realised it was under pressure and at that stage he tapped it up and pulled its gear. He further stated that he applied some pressure rounding the turn, however as he was concerned for the horse he allowed it to run to the line under its own steam. A post-race veterinary examination found the horse to be very distressed with a delayed recovery, high temperature and a high heart rate. Trainer S TRITTON expressed his disappointment with the performance of the horse and his concerns with the manner in which it appeared post-race. He added it was his intention to take blood from the horse for testing and would advised of the outcome. On Monday morning (27th March), he advised the horse appeared to be doing better, however the test results were no back at that stage. Connections were advised a veterinary clearance of fitness will be required prior to the horse racing again and pending the results of the blood test, further embargoes may be placed on the horse.
Post-race samples were taken from the winner CASTALONG SHADOW, the second placed MACKERAL and the un-placed favourite DIVINE STATE.

Saw somewhere today that blood test revealled a virus.

[arlington]

HRNSW Stewards‏

Trainer S Tritton advises blood tests from 2YO DIVINE STATE confirm a bacterial infection. Horse stood down for 28 days & pending 1 trial.

[arlington]

Terrific effort.

If you would like some reading.

http://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/4554525/golden-shadow/

http://harnessnews.com.au/2017/03/night-of-firsts-at-bathurst/

http://www.harnessbred.com/bathurst-snippets/


G Simpson's drive equal to N Jack on Musical Delight, 2012 APG fillies?

[Greg Hando]

Brendon i don't bet and if I did no money of mine would have went on.

[Bonnie]

No, but then I'm biased. I own Musical Delight and it was a great win ! N.Jack can drive

[alphastud]

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?

[arlington]

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?


Matt congratulating Geoff http://www.harnessracingforum.com/images/icons/icon14.png


Re pathology/vet results - would you risk submitting something that couldn't be substantiated?

[arlington]

No, but then I'm biased. I own Musical Delight and it was a great win ! N.Jack can drive


Was a great win Anne, hence the comparison.

[trish]

HRNSW Stewards‏

Trainer S Tritton advises blood tests from 2YO DIVINE STATE confirm a bacterial infection. Horse stood down for 28 days & pending 1 trial.




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.

[aussiebreno]

A bacterial infection would explain the performance.

[alphastud]

Matt congratulating Geoff http://www.harnessracingforum.com/images/icons/icon14.png


Re pathology/vet results - would you risk submitting something that couldn't be substantiated?

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)

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.

[arlington]

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)

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.

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.

[alphastud]

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.

[Messenger]

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

[aussiebreno]

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.

[arlington]

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?

[alphastud]

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.

[arlington]

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.