Archive for the ‘Horse Health’ Category

By Ray Paulick
Whenever I think about horse racing’s crazy-quilt regulatory system that has ruling bodies in 38 different states, I recall the time an official at some racetrack asked Hall of Famer Bill Mott to show his trainer’s license before entering a restricted area. Mott reached into his Wrangler’s and pulled out what appeared to be a full deck of laminated playing cards, held together by a rubber band wrapped around the outside.

“It’s in here somewhere,” Mott said, fumbling through individual licenses for Florida, New York, Kentucky, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois, Delaware, Virginia, Louisiana, and maybe even his home state of South Dakota, among others.

Uniform licensing is a concept the industry has been working on for, oh, 50 years or so. They still haven’t got it figured out. In this regard, owners, trainers and other licensees are subjected to some of the most ridiculous regulatory inefficiencies any industry has ever seen. Why?

I thought about this absurdity as I read the racing industry’s latest “white paper,” this one authored by a well-intentioned group of equine veterinarians at the American Association of Equine Practitioners that suggests we all follow their recommendations, pull together, and work in concert for the overall good of the industry.

The average meaningful life of a Thoroughbred industry white paper is about 10 to 14 days – or at least it used to be. That’s about how long it took for the weekly trade magazines to dutifully detail the highlights, and then mail the magazine to their subscribers. The typical reader reaction was a collective yawn. They know how the industry works … or doesn’t. The lifespan of an industry white paper might be shorter today, given the access to the information on various Web sites.

For those who haven’t seen the AAEP treatise, it’s called “Putting the Horse First: Veterinary Recommendations for the Safety and Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse.” Click here to read the entire nine-page report.

For those who want the abbreviated version, here it is: 1) the AAEP believes it is “imperative that the industry urgently demonstrate an ability to affect sweeping change without government intervention”; 2) we need to hold hands and sit around a campfire singing songs until we can reach agreement on issues related to the welfare of the horse 3) horses should not be permitted to race without at least 10 days between starts; 4) some racing secretaries are evil and racetrack management is increasingly clueless about horses; 5) more study is needed in the areas of racing, training and selling 2-year-olds; 6) adopt new whip rules; 7) keep holding hands and singing campfire songs; 8) it’s no longer acceptable for owners to heartlessly discard ex-racehorses, and it’s imperative that all jurisdictions establish and support rehabilitation, retraining and adoption agencies 9) claiming races need reform, with purses no more than 50% higher than the claiming price, drug testing of all claimed horses, and claims for horses that fail to finish a race being voided; 10) develop and adopt uniform rules, penalties, drug testing protocols, violation reporting procedures (stop me if you’ve heard this one before); and 11) keep singing and holding hands, and will someone please throw some more logs on the fire?

This industry is amazing, if for no other reason than for its ability to clear its throat and harrumph when the situation is dire. Since Eight Belles died on the track at Churchill Downs and we celebrated the highs and lows of Big Brown, an anabolic steroid-pumped Kentucky Derby winner (surely not the only one), we have had more task forces, committees, blue-ribbon panels, and alliances than we’ve mustered up before in this short a time. We’ve had the Jockey Club, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, and now the American Association of Equine Practitioners sounding off (and I know I’m forgetting some of the other alphabet soup orgs).

And still, Bill Mott has a pocketful of racing licenses. If we can’t do the simple things, what makes the AAEP or any other group think we are going to convince 38 state racing commissions that a $12,500 purse is too high for $8,000 claimers, or that a horse needs 10 days off before racing again?

Let’s look at the first premise of the AAEP’s white paper, that we need to “urgently demonstrate an ability” to make change without government intervention. Haven’t we had enough chances to demonstrate our ability to do so? (I enter Bill Mott’s expired trainer’s licenses into evidence.)

Why and how has the AAEP, a group of veterinarians, taken it upon themselves to state that we must do this without government assistance? I suppose if they were involved in the cattle or poultry or peanut business, they’d suggest we would be better off producing meat and other foodstuffs without interference from the United States Department of Agriculture.

The point is, we need government to help us overcome the dysfunctional regulatory structure that has led us to this mess we are in. We just need to be able to be part of the process, and not be in the adversarial role many in this industry are setting us up to be in. If we repeat the mantra that “government is enemy, government is enemy,” how do you think government is going to respond?

So with all due respect to the AAEP and its veterinarians, please stick to what you know best. In fact, this white paper completely ignores what vets know best, which is the care of horses. Nowhere in the white paper are there recommendations on such procedures as pin firing of shins of young horses, or permitting horses to race just days after receiving joint injections. To be fair, AAEP executive director David Foley said further recommendations will be forthcoming, but should those recommendations have come first, so that their own house is in order?

Tell us what you think about the chances the AAEP’s white paper recommendations will ever be implemented. Read the full report. Take our poll on the left-hand column of the Paulick Report home page, and leave your comments in the space provided below.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

By Ray Paulick
If Barbaro had been euthanized immediately following the 2006 Preakness Stakes in which he suffered a catastrophic injury to his right hind leg, there probably would be no books written about the Kentucky Derby winner, no television specials, no statues and memorials, no group known as the FOBs (Fans of Barbaro), and no Nicanor watch, a long-running web diary devoted to his younger full brother. If the injury had occurred 10, 15 or 20 years earlier, it’s very likely that’s what would have happened – a quick decision to inject the horse with a fatal mixture of drugs to take him out of his misery.

That isn’t what transpired with Barbaro. Veterinary science has come a long way from the days of a cursory on-track inspection and the realization that nothing could be done to save a horse suffering from a massive leg fracture. Unlike humans, horses can’t rehabilitate in bed while their leg heals.

So owners Roy and Gretchen Jackson, along with Barbaro’s trainer, Michael Matz, made the decision to do everything possible to save Barbaro’s life. He was vanned – followed by news helicopters — from Pimlico race course in Baltimore to the University of Pennsylvania’s New Bolton Center near the small town of Kennett Square, southwest of Philadelphia. The colt was put in the care of Dean Richardson, a surgeon who would soon become the closest thing the equine veterinary community has ever had to a rock star.

The news coverage, fueled by public interest from hard-bitten horseplayers to people who had never been to a racetrack, was unprecedented. Richardson’s surgical team miraculously put Barbaro’s shattered leg back together with metal plates, screws and more than a little hope that it would all hold. The big colt chilled out following surgery,hoisted into a recovery pool specially designed for large animals that would prevent him from thrashing about and destroying the repair work. Two previous high-profile surgeries – on Ruffian following her 1975 match race and on Alydar after his mysterious stall accident in 1990 at Calumet Farm – ultimately failed during recovery after the horses had regained consciousness and reinjured themselves.

Richardson dealt patiently with inquiries from members of the media who were trying to quench the thirst for information from the public. Television and radio news and talk shows carried numerous Barbaro stories, and many horse racing Web sites crashed from the surge in traffic, including one operated by the University of Pennsylvania that provided daily updates with photos of racing’s tragic hero.

It was a time for the horse racing industry, and particularly those in the veterinary community, to feel proud for the care given and the advancements made in treating injured horses. The outpouring of concern for Barbaro from the general public was reassuring to an industry that feared a high-profile injury might be its worst nightmare. This much we learned: people still loved horses. Thousands of them made visits to New Bolton, sent get-well cards, flowers, letters and carrots. 

There were critics (aren’t there always?) who said keeping Barbaro alive was cruel to the horse, that he would never have anything close to a normal life. But only a couple of months after the surgery, I was invited by a veterinary associate of Richardson’s to visit New Bolton and see Barbaro. His hind leg was twisted abnormally, but he was bright-eyed and seemed like a happy horse, though on the day of our visit Richardson (pictured, left, with Barbaro and me) had concerns early signs of laminitis were beginning to appear. It’s the No. 1 fear many veterinarians have for their recovering patients; that circulation problems will develop in the foot on an injured leg, causing the horse to distribute his weight unevenly, which can lead to further problems in the other feet. The old axiom “no foot, no horse” really is true.

Barbaro’s laminitis condition improved and the injured leg continued to heal, leading the Jacksons to begin considering a life after New Bolton for their Derby winner. There was even some speculation that he might be able to cover mares some day and pass along whatever special ingredient he had that carried him to six straight victories, including a dominating, 6 ½-length victory in the Kentucky Derby.

Ultimately, and sadly, the laminitis returned. Richardson and his New Bolton team, along with some outside advisers, tried a variety of treatments and special shoes to ensure circulation to the right hind foot. The condition worsened in January 2007, however, leading Richardson to try more radical treatments, including an external brace on the right hind leg to take weight off the foot. After those efforts failed, more than eight months following his injury, the decision was made on the morning of Jan. 29 to euthanize Barbaro. A nation mourned.

I wondered at the time how the saga of Barbaro would affect the popularity of racing. I have no doubt that we have new fans because of him, though many of them have to be considered “light users” when it comes to supporting the game at the mutuel windows. His gallant struggle to survive created enormous interest, and in some ways what almost seems like a cult of followers who have now transferred their interest to Barbaro’s 3-year-old full brother, Nicanor. The latter makes his long-awaited debut in the eighth race on Saturday at Gulfstream Park, a maiden test going a mile on the dirt. Barbaro’s regular rider, Edgar Prado, will be aboard the colt, who will be shouldered with the heaviest burden of expectations that any horse in my lifetime has ever carried.

We learned a great deal from Barbaro. Some outsiders discovered what many in the horse industry already knew: that the level of advancements in veterinary science is enormous. But we also learned that some maladies, including laminitis, remain a mystery despite the ongoing efforts of researchers and those who provide financial assistance to them.

The eyes of the racing world will be on Nicanor tomorrow as he makes his racing debut. Many people will be betting on the colt in hopes that he can rise to the level of his older brother. Others will look at that race as a great wagering opportunity, figuring that Nicanor will be one of the most overbet first-time starters ever, and they’ll look for betting value in his opposition.

Here’s a suggestion for anyone that plans to bet on Nicanor or on someone else in that maiden race. Put aside a few bucks that you were going to bet, and take a few more if you wager successfully on the race, and make a donation to equine research, specifically to help find a cure for laminitis.

Here are two worthy causes:
NTRA Charities – Barbaro Memorial Fund, c/o Bessemer Trust Company N.A., attention Robert Elliott, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY

Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, 821 Corporate Drive, Lexington, KY 40503  or click here to donate.

Let’s do more than remember Barbaro and cheer for his brother. Do something to make a difference in the future of other horses that may suffer a similar fate.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.

Following the 2008 Breeders’ Cup, where European horses had their best results ever, the Paulick Report Daily Poll questioned readers about why the European runners fared so well. Was it the recent California ban on anabolic steroids, leveling the playing field for international runners who have never raced on the medication? Was it the synthetic surface at Santa Anita used for the traditional dirt races? Or were European horses simply better this year? The results were mixed, but 47% of respondents thought the synthetic surface made the biggest difference.

One thing that never crossed my mind was a possible difference in the feed given horses in Europe vs. what they are fed in the United States. Sharon Hinsley, who with her husband runs a public stable in Chicago and Tampa Bay, thinks that could be a factor in the increasing fragility of American-based runners. 

Pending the results of scientific research, some ingredients have been banned from feed in Europe, where a movement for “natural” or “green” food ingredients is much farther along than in the U.S. GMO feed (with genetically modified organisms) is labeled as such in European Union countries. (Click here to read about European protests against GMO food.) Nutrition experts here caution us, however,  that “natural” products are not necessarily any safer, and that all food ingredients should be monitored and tested.

The following commentary by Sharon Hinsley (who can be reached at Dhhstable1@aol.com) certainly opens for us a new debate about food ingredients, one that has been ongoing in European and Asian countries. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the Paulick Report, but we think the subject matter is important enough to be discussed. – Ray Paulick

By Sharon Hinsley
My husband and I have been owners and trainer of a public racing stable for over 22 years. As with so many others whose life’s work has been in this industry, we have seen first-hand the increasing fragility of the Thoroughbred and its growing impact on this once-great and beloved sport.

Following the European success in the 2008 Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita, I couldn’t help but think back to several of the comments voiced in a magazine article about the success of the European runners. For instance, a comment was made that American-bred horses competing in Europe race significantly more than their counterparts here in the United States.

In the same discussion, someone questioned whether changes in the water or type of feed may be contributing to the durability problem. While factors such as racing surface, breeding practices oriented toward speed and precocity, steroids and medication (both legal and otherwise) have dominated the discussions about the seemingly increased fragility of our horses, have we missed some very important and fundamental contributing factors? Could something as basic as what we feed our horses be a part of the durability and soundness problem? Is there something different about the feed given to horses in Europe versus what we feed our horses in the United States?

A review of UK horse feed Web sites shows some interesting terminology not seen associated with horse feed in the United States. For instance, many of the UK feeds contain statements such as “non-GMO” and “Identity Preserved”. GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism and Identity Preserved refers to quality assurance programs and certifications aimed at ensuring that products can be traced through the entire production cycle so they have not been contaminated by genetically modified organisms.

 A genetically modified organism is the result of genetic engineering. Also known as transgenic organisms, they are the product of laboratory processes that take genes from one species and insert them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired characteristic. Although genetic engineering holds great promise, particularly in the field of medicine, its application in the agricultural arena has been primarily focused on herbicide tolerance and pesticide control. By making a crop herbicide resistant, herbicides can be applied over and over again allowing the plant to live while everything else around it dies. This has proven to be economically advantageous for the producers of the herbicides but potentially troublesome for consumers, not to mention the environment. And what of the effect that ingestion of these genetically modified crops might have on horses?

There is a significant difference between what has happened in the United States agriculturally and in many parts of Europe where GMOs have been banned from being grown or used in any feed or food.    Within the United States (and Canada), the proliferation of genetically modified organisms within the food supply is troubling, particularly given the high degree of uncertainty that exists with respect to the health effects of GMOs in food. This is equally true for the unknown effects that GMO feed may be having on our horses.

The current technology of genetic engineering is not nearly as precise as most would believe. The insertion of new genetic material is still a highly inaccurate procedure. Unintended side effects are often encountered, and many of these unintended side effects are not well-studied or documented. Genetically modified plants have been known to create toxins. The plant may be significantly altered with respect to its nutrient content, the balance of proteins within the plant may be disrupted, again with unknown consequences. In addition, due to the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes, GMOs may be contributing to increased antibiotic resistance, particularly in critical gut bacteria. GMOs may also be contributing to increases in allergies. The effect of GMOs in what we feed our horses is simply not well-known or understood. In the United States, though, it is likely we are feeding our horses a steady diet of GMO feed. Could this be a contributing factor to the durability issues of the modern Thoroughbred? It is certainly food for thought.

As horsemen we must become educated about what is in our feeds. We cannot assume that the quality of grains we used to get in decades past is the same as what is now in bags of feed. The recipes of our favorite brands may have changed without us even knowing. Oftentimes, we may simply see that bright label saying "new and improved." However, “new and improved” might mean something substantially different from what we would expect it to mean. We must put pressure on our mills to produce non-GMO feed free of pesticide contamination just like our European counterparts have available to them. We need to start asking and validating the contents and quality of the feed we provide to our horses.   Even though every horse in the racing business is for sale one way or another, we have a moral obligation to preserve the durability and quality of the breed no matter who owns the horse we raise. Garbage in/garbage out and eventually we are all out of business.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.