Raceday Medications USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzy

As for my comment on EPO previously yes absolutely it was grandstanding no doubt about it. I thought if I wrote in the same style as VVV then perhaps he might just be able to understand it, call me an optimist but I know I was probably just kidding myself.

[VVV] Nah. What you did Dot was state something that was very bloody stupid trying to tie in a therapeutic use for EPO in racing with your anti therapeutics platform...and now you're trying to get yourself out of a hole of your own digging.
Not one to stand by and see a fellow human being suffer, here's a bit of musical assistance while you dig your way out again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJf4_hsVEXE Watch the first 30 seconds or so. Is that you in the grey hoodie & black baseball cap?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple V

[VVV] Nah. What you did Dot was state something that was very bloody stupid trying to tie in a therapeutic use for EPO in racing with your anti therapeutics platform...and now you're trying to get yourself out of a hole of your own digging.
Not one to stand by and see a fellow human being suffer, here's a bit of musical assistance while you dig your way out again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJf4_hsVEXE Watch the first 30 seconds or so. Is that you in the grey hoodie & black baseball cap?

Yep you didn't get it, I never mentioned EPO as a therapeutic in racing, only with medical advice in patients with renal failure. I said EPO wasn't a therapeutic drug in equine athletes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple V

[VVV] All of which immediately begs the question that if you knew whatever it is you think you actually knew about these and other horses in the first place...why on Earth would you go on to falsely, verging upon maliciously accuse these and other US horses of having retired from racing because of the use of therapeutic meds? Clearly you do not have both oars in the water Dot...seriously. Visit the Doctor and get some therapeutics of your own.

MIA and Big Jims histories with injury are both well documented including on harnesslink and public record VVV . Sportwriters suspensory injury was not so well known but the documentory proof is there if you look. www.meadowlandspace.com/pdf/bt_cheddar.pdf 11 paragraphs in. As to Meadow Skippers career and record I thoroughly recommend John Bradley's Modern Pacing Sire Lines as an excellant read.

And I did not accuse MIA, Sportswriter or Big Jim, or any other stallion as having retired because of the use of therapeutic meds. I did write that these three in particular had much shorter careers, and many other stallions shorter careers, all a matter of public record, in the era of permissive raceday meds then the "legends" of around 50 years ago.

VVV you saw what you wanted to see in what I wrote, not what was actually written. Do you not think Teecee would have deleted my posts if I had made false and malicious accusations?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Dot

Unfortunately Dot I am pretty sure the change in policy in the USA was brought about by pressure from an organisation called the IFHA they have been exerting pressure on the US authorities to move away from race day treatments for some time now and seem to be slowly wining the battle...... not as you suggest due to the chorus of public opinion.

In relation to Thomas Tobin I will not waste my time reading his website.

I am sure you have watched many US law shows on the TV where each side produces an expert witness to say what they need them to say to present a case, my understanding is Dr Tobin does a lot of this work in racing of both codes world wide at a fairly hefty fee.

The US are only moving from race day treatments to all but our current system, you know the one you want to change so much.

Bill racing is a global industry, I have no difficulty believing that the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities is bringing pressure to bear on the US, nor that other global racing bodies may also be bringing pressure to bear, in fact I seriously hope they are. But why are you so resistant to the concept of public opinion and perception being involved? The articles I have quoted in this thread clearly indicate US industry bodies being concerned with public opinion and perception. I'm sure the IFHA would be too. Quite frankly I'd have no problem if it were actually aliens that got the US to change their raceday medication policies if it would reduce the deathrate amongst the horses.

Dr Tobin is indeed an expert witness and available worldwide. He has provided expert opinion just recently for both Tim Butt and Luke McCarthy, with regard to the arsenic and boldonone positive swabs returned by their respective horses. He stated that arsenic at the concentration found in Raglan had absolutely no possibility of being performance enhancing. He also challenged the validity of the Hong Kong laboratories threshold and test for arsenic.

Dr Tobin is very much in yours and VVV camps with regards to allowable medication thresholds for the inactive metabolites of the parent drugs. But as an expert he is under no illusion of what is required to create a list of allowable thresholds such as VVV wishes for, particularly with regard to absolutes about withdrawal times.

If the US is moving to drug free racing Bill then bring it on I say.

As for our system, you yourself have written of how far behind we were with regard to ulcer medications, but we caught up. If only we could catch up with how performance enhancing drugs are being used these days, instead of being stuck in an era of reliance on post race testing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzy

Dr Tobin is indeed an expert witness and available worldwide. He has provided expert opinion just recently for both Tim Butt and Luke McCarthy, with regard to the arsenic and boldonone positive swabs returned by their respective horses. He stated that each substance at the respective concentrations found in each horse had absolutely no possibility of being performance enhancing. He also challenged the validity of the Honk Kong laboratories threshold and test for arsenic.

.

Can you please tell me where you got this from. I'd like to read what Prof Tobin had to say re this case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

Can you please tell me where you got this from. I'd like to read what Prof Tobin had to say re this case.

Harnesslink!

"Drugs expert backs disqualified Kiwi trainer" 15 May 2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Moreso a fan than a punter.
Figuring out the differences of times between tracks would be a big one. These opinions I am about to put forward aren't exact but are enough for you to get the picture.
I estimate 1.56 at Menangle = 2.00 at Wagga. But then the faster they go the bigger the gap, a 1.56 at Wagga could be a 1.50 at Menangle. This is because at both tracks they might go 62 first half and then at Wagga get home in 58 but get home at Menangle in 54. Sometimes a single quarter is more important than the race time.

Then you have the spectacle. Races are run different - and for the good. In traditionally run races they might go 30, 32, 29, 28 = 1.59. We are seeing a bit more of 30,30,30,29 = 1.59. I was looking at some of Somebeachsomewheres racing record yesterday. He would go 27,28,27,28...the last quarter wasn't necesarily the fastest. When the final quarter is the quickest you don't necesarily get to see every horse perform to 100% - there might be something in the tank that you don't get to know about as a punter (although of course you can take into account horses top speed and stamina etc to estimate what could have happened). If they've slowed up the last 400m you get to see every bit of what a horse can give. That is what Menangle can bring when drivers get confident with their horses capabilities. At the moment too many 27 flat final 400m quarters are occuring in 1.55/1.56 mile rates. Shouldnt happen. Eventually it will reduce.

As an aside, Luke McCarthy is the bet god damned driver to ever drive the track, closely followed by Darren Hancock. Any coincidence they've both spent time in America the last 5 years? If I was a driver at Menangle over the mile (taking into account specific horse) I would peel out 3 wide as they head into the back straight and go to the chair or the front. Drop out the first quarter, sustained speed for 1200m. Forget burning Smoken Up out of the gate...let him go 30,28,27,27 while the others have gone 28,30,27,27+. Can't catch him. Best horse wins. Thats a great thing about a track drivers can be confident of going fast.

Thanks Brenno

From my position I do the same. I average out the times differentials between tracks, I'm pretty sure everyone else would do the same so are we really better off because of the faster times run at Menangle or would we be better of if the times were just simply more comparable from one similar track to the next? In an earlier discussion Adam Fairley provided HRNSW's policy for maximising turnover, I don't recall "speed" being a factor in increasing our income from turnover.

I don't mean to be offensive Brenno have you actually been to Menangle or are you watching on the TV? Does your speed spectacle, run in reality for the most part in the distance at Menangle if you are on track, sufficiently compensate for the greater intimacy with the action that an amphitheatre style track as Harold Park had? If you are watching on TV and the commentry changed to a style like the gallops where they may describe the tempo sometimes rather then actual time run for quarters would you be as excited by what you watch from Menangle? In other words is it what you see or what you hear that makes it a better specatacle?

From your description you obviously prefer the American style racing pattern over the Australian one. I cant say I agree with you though but I look at it from a diffferent perspective. Your preferred pattern is hard on horses who are lesser animals then SBSW. At sustained higher rates of speed more horses cross from aerobic to anerobic energy pathways producing large amounts of lactic acid leading to muscle pain and fatigue. Thats why they slow down in the last quarter and the principle behind milkshaking. Fatigue also increases the risk of a decrease in neuromuscular coordination which may result in higher rates of injury.

A punter mighten like it Brenno but as a trainer and owner whilst I want my horse to win I'm actually happiest with those occasions they have been able to win without being tested to 100%

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzy

Thanks Brenno

From my position I do the same. I average out the times differentials between tracks, I'm pretty sure everyone else would do the same so are we really better off because of the faster times run at Menangle or would we be better of if the times were just simply more comparable from one similar track to the next? In an earlier discussion Adam Fairley provided HRNSW's policy for maximising turnover, I don't recall "speed" being a factor in increasing our income from turnover.
How does my original post saying Menangle produces 'consistently' faster times have any relevance to this.

I don't mean to be offensive Brenno have you actually been to Menangle or are you watching on the TV? Does your speed spectacle, run in reality for the most part in the distance at Menangle if you are on track, sufficiently compensate for the greater intimacy with the action that an amphitheatre style track as Harold Park had? If you are watching on TV and the commentry changed to a style like the gallops where they may describe the tempo sometimes rather then actual time run for quarters would you be as excited by what you watch from Menangle? In other words is it what you see or what you hear that makes it a better specatacle?

Have been to Menangle a few times. If I can gloat for a minute I reckon I'm a pretty good judge of pace, very good when on course and sound when watching on TV. Of course I look to the sectional board for confirmation but I can tell if they're going fast, moderate or slow (This is at both Menangle and 1/2 mile tracks). Again I don't know what this has to do with my original point that Menangle has 'consistently' faster times. That point of course being in reply to you sprouting about fast time on smaller tracks.

From your description you obviously prefer the American style racing pattern over the Australian one. I cant say I agree with you though but I look at it from a diffferent perspective. Your preferred pattern is hard on horses who are lesser animals then SBSW. At sustained higher rates of speed more horses cross from aerobic to anerobic energy pathways producing large amounts of lactic acid leading to muscle pain and fatigue. Thats why they slow down in the last quarter and the principle behind milkshaking. Fatigue also increases the risk of a decrease in neuromuscular coordination which may result in higher rates of injury.
Thanks for the lesson. I am aware of that. I will give you a race over a distance of your choosing just to prove that I have put that theory into practice with my own body. The one big key thing you've missed which can't really be learnt from a textbook or from watching others train (just like you know more about handling horses than I do) is that you, I, Robert De Castella and everybody else feel the exact same lactic acid build up, muscle pain and fatigue. Once we hit the wall we all feel it the same. This is why under the racing pattern I described before it doesn't matter if you are SBSW or an R0. It might matter a bit if you hadn't exercised for 6 months, but certaintly not in a race fit animal who has been in training. The second thing is recovery. While SBSW might get his breathing back and his heart rate down a fair bit quicker than the R0 the bigger issue is muscle recovery. That relies on a) what you to aid it and b) the quality of the muscle tissue. Both SBSW and the R0 can both be treated to nice cold swims, massages (in fact right now I should be foam rolling my IT band its more fun then replying to this), top shelf feed...as for muscle quality it is every chance the R0 has better muscle quality and repairing ability. This means it isn't necesarily harder on lesser quality horses to have to use up their anerobic energy stores by running 29,30,29,30 etc than what it is for the top shelf horses to go 28,29,27,28.

A punter mighten like it Brenno but as a trainer and owner whilst I want my horse to win I'm actually happiest with those occasions they have been able to win without being tested to 100% I'm well aware of that but you did ask for my punters cap answer.

One more thing Dot, the skys blue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple V

[VVV] Did you actually WATCH that race at all Dot?...or did you just read over the press release & seize on the final time & the dimensions of the track & then excitedly add them to your basket of crap to throw at Menangle? :confused:
It's called RACE TEMPO and when it's combined with top shelf horses, a tuned up track, and hot & humid & still air...the race set up like a 6 horse time trial.
They posted wicked early fractions, left in in 25 & a piece, front end pressure all the way to the 3/4's in 1:19 & something (I reckon that's very likely the fastest 3/4s ever seen in The Adios) & Mark McDonald had a very, very good horse in Bolt The Duer sitting fresh in behind them in a beautiful pocket trip, he duly burst through off cover up the passing lane & won it.
Something similar happened @ Harrah's PA in The Battle Of Brandywine when Hurrikane Kingcole rolled on the lead through 25.3, 52.3 & to the 3/4's in 1:20 & a piece, the 52.3 was fastest opening half that I think they've ever posted on that track. A Rocknroll Dance sat back 3rd on the pylons, pulled just after the half and blew by them with Pet Rock closing hard from way back to finish 2nd.
Just to further underline the above, Bolt The Duer led all the way to win a KYSS 3yo by 8+ at The Red Mile our time early Friday morning just gone in 1:50.2, there was nothing in that race that was even close to being capable of towing him into the lane in 1:19 & a bit, no Hurrikane Kingcole etc & in fact they made the 3/4's in 1:24.4. It's all about RACE TEMPO.

In a lot of instances you would be right VVV I wouldn't have seen the race but in the case of this one you are wrong I have seen it, and read the press releases. seems the connections of BTD had a plan involving a change of tactics to win the race, I'm sure they didn't actually expect to go into the history books as potentially anything else then as the winner. And speaking of crap can you tell us exactly where AGL's Coal Seam Gas Well is?

No question the fast time was set up by the race tempo but you still haven't told me why we built a 1400m track at Menangle? Does the TAB hold more on a fast race? Speed wasn't included in HRNSW's policy with regard to increasing turnover. Does the TAB return us a greater % of cash for a fast run race? That might be it, the faster we go the more greyhound races the TAB can fit in. That must be it.

Honestly VVV we are not going to be able to match the times they run in the US, Joey Muscara explained it very well if you cant figure it out for yourself. Todays cold hard economic reality for the industry is its not how fast we go, its how much turnover we generate. Can you explain to me how having a single 1400m track with a different racing pattern to the tracks across the state that are intended to feed into it improves turnover? You don't honestly believe the money from the sale of Harold Park will last forever do you? The gallops have a similar amount just to build a new grandstand and a few other improvements.

[QUOTE=dizzy;22871]
No question the fast time was set up by the race tempo but you still haven't told me why we built a 1400m track at Menangle? Does the TAB hold more on a fast race? Speed wasn't included in HRNSW's policy with regard to increasing turnover. Does the TAB return us a greater % of cash for a fast run race? That might be it, the faster we go the more greyhound races the TAB can fit in. That must be it.
QUOTE]
The bigger track gets driven differently.
2.00 at Wagga = 1.56 Menangle
1.56 Wagga = 1.50 Menangle.
You can go harder. Opens the race up more. More horses get a chance. A punters bet will get some sort of crack.
Even if they sit up and go 30, 30, 30, 27 then in the run home the lone straight means you aren't 3 wide around a bend in the final 400m.

Either way all horses get a better chance.

End of story.

Your the bean counter Brenno I thought you'd know that everything always comes down to the bottomline. I think you have misunderstood my question, it wasn't about your ability to judge pace. Brenno we may all feel the same lactic acid build up etc but are you saying that we all transition from the use of aerobic energy to anerobic energy at the same threshold? I'll have to decline your offer of a race though, I couldn't match VVV for 20m let alone you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzy

Your the bean counter Brenno I thought you'd know that everything always comes down to the bottomline. I think you have misunderstood my question, it wasn't about your ability to judge pace. Brenno we may all feel the same lactic acid build up etc but are you saying that we all transition from the use of aerobic energy to anerobic energy at the same threshold? I'll have to decline your offer of a race though, I couldn't match VVV for 20m let alone you.

I do apologise for misunderstanding, its a bit hard to keep with the different tangents you go on.
Well yes, not sure if its the same in horses (couldnt be too much different) but in humans we all rely on our anaerobic fitness when we go over 80-85% of our max heart rate.
Again the R0s going 30,30,30,31 will get the same lactic acid build up as the SBSWs going 26,27,28,28. You have to remember the R0s wont be going 26,27,30,35.

Brenno I think you look at the handicapping system as being based on ability, it isn't it's based on racetrack success. All horses comence as an R0 regardless of their ability, the more talented progress quickly, the least talented remain an R0. R0 fields may be evenly matched or they may have a superior horse/s engaged that is capable of taking the others out of their comfort zone.

But the major point is regardless of how fast they go once they have reached "the wall" and become fatigued the risk of injury increases. Whilst human athletes frequently train with a "no pain no gain" maxim and rebound to improve in strength, to train a horse the same way will just sour them up or break them down