PAULICK’S ‘ASTOUNDING LACK OF UNDERSTANDING’
Among those who took exception to
what I wrote about the “AAEP’s Kumbaya Paper” was Dr. Rick Arthur, a former AAEP president and currently medical director for the California Horse Racing Board. Arthur was one of 35 veterinarians who developed the white paper over a period of months.Arthur gave up a well-established private practice at Southern California racetracks to take the CHRB position in 2006, and he has been a prominent and outspoken advocate for horse health issues in his role as medical director.
The views he presents are his own personal opinions and do necessarily represent those of the AAEP. – Ray Paulick
By Rick M. Arthur, DVM
Sure, there is some Kumbaya in the AAEP’s white paper, just like the recommendations from every other group that has looked at the issues. But to say the AAEP’s white paper doesn’t address what we know best shows an astounding lack of understanding of how horse care at the race track works. Horse racing’s veterinarians are the people who clean up the messes horse racing leaves behind. Just as physicians see parts of the human experience that are not pretty and so do veterinarians in horse racing.
How do the AAEP White paper recommendations relate to what we know best, “
the care of horses?” Let’s look at a few examples:* A period of rest for all horses to provide an opportunity to refresh and diminish the volume of persistent cyclic loading that occurs in the absence of rest.
* No horse shall be permitted to race within 10 days of its last start.
These are really the same issue. Over 90% of all racing fatalities show evidence of pre-existing pathology at the site of their catastrophic injury. These are repetitive stress injuries. Veterinarians are saying give the body time to heal. Where is this outside of what veterinarians know best?
* Every horse entered to race shall be on association grounds in sufficient time to have a pre-race veterinary inspection for racing soundness by the regulatory veterinarian.
*Standardization and enhancement of pre-race and post-race veterinary examinations with mandatory cross-jurisdictional sharing of information.
These are the same issue. Horses should have proper pre-race veterinary inspections; not all do. Is it possible veterinarians see horses racing that shouldn’t be on the track?
* In those jurisdictions that practice it, racetrack management must discontinue the coercion of trainers to enter horses according to stall allotment.
Could it be veterinarians are seeing unfit and sore horses entered to simply fill racing cards? If you think this is out of our area of expertise, you are mistaken.
* Uniform participation by all jurisdictions in injury reporting for both racing and training injuries.
Veterinarians have been driving this issue for years. The numbers are worse than horse racing wants to face. To solve a problem, you have to understand the scope of the problem. Is there a question whether this is a veterinarian issue?
* Development of continuing education and accreditation programs for owners, trainers, stewards, jockeys, grooms, starters, farriers, veterinarians and security personnel.
There is no entity in horse racing which understands or does CE better than the AAEP. In fact there are few professional organizations anywhere that do.
* Claiming (all of it)
Is there a veterinarian at the track who hasn’t seen first-hand how claiming negatively impacts horse welfare? If you have any doubt, spend any entry day with any race track veterinarian.
* Medication
The AAEP white paper endorses a number of fundamental changes in horse racing medication. Encouraging collaboration between the RMTC and IHFA is an enormous step as are many of the other medication recommendations.
As for joint injections: this issue was discussed. What is the right answer without adequate research? Just Say No would have been Kumbaya. The RMTC has announced a major research effort towards glucocorticoid drug testing research which should lead to profound changes on how intra-articular injections are regulated.The AAEP supports the RMTC. The veterinarians on the Racing Task Force know this issue well; well enough to know it is complicated and complex.
* The key to successful implementation of these medication recommendations is increased racetrack security to promote enforcement and achieve uniform compliance.
Horse racing veterinarians are calling for increased security. Hey, you’re right, what do veterinarians know about the need for better backside security? When did they go to the police academy? Or maybe everyone should sit up and ask what are horse racing veterinarians seeing as they spend all day on the backside to cause them to recommend more backside security?
One last point: Sorry, banning the dying practice of pin-firing will never save one horse. I can’t remember if it was ever discussed.
Thirty-five veterinarians worked on the AAEP White paper and all contributed. This is a pretty good first step even with the Kumbaya.
The AAEP understands the issues facing horse racing and is ready, willing and able to work with the industry to help move equine welfare and racing integrity forward.
Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray PaulickVisit the Paulick Report for
all the latest news throughout the racing world.Tags: aaep, AAEP white paper, american association of equine practitioners, California Horse Racing Board, CHRB, chrb medical director, Horse Health, Horse Welfare, kumbaya, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, rick arthur
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Let me try and predict the number of responses this thread gets:
(The views I presents in this comment are my own personal opinions and do necessarily represent those of the AAEP or Ray Paulick)
.
Vets aren’t in it for the horse: 28
Why not ban Lasix?: 26
How do you know 10 days is the magic number?: 12
Isn’t easy to make recommendations without the authority to implement them: 10
Medications?, You wanna talk medications?, (Insert personal story here): 22
I enjoyed the perspective Dr. Arthur, but I’ll have to land on Paulick’s assessment of odds to implement being low…Not your fault, just the way it is….
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
A lot of double talk is what I see. Let’s just take the five (5) most important practices/processes that the vets can agree on and get them implemented in a standard, uniform way. That will provide something to build on and will verify that the industry is serious about addressing equine well-being.
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Richard R said: “Let’s just take the five (5) most important practices/processes ”
5??? how about 1… Ray, we expect a headline when the first one is implemented….
An industry of cynics we’ve become. Me included….
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Another comment, I’m on a roll…..
The AAEP put out a white paper about meds at sales in 2005…”Medication in Horses for Sale at Public Auction”
How’s that worked out? Seriously ,I don’t know the answer.
Did this white paper have anything else implemented besides the ‘roid semi-enactment?
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
To Gallop:
They can’t agree on one! At least five gives some latitude and a chance that there’s a little something for everybody…enough chance that a consensus can be reached.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I think Arthur’s point was simply that the vets do know and are the proper authority on the matters he outlines above. Not everything is black and white, all or nothing. Most change is incremental. I am not defending the infighting and glacial reaction of this industry, though. White papers are a suggestion to improve or to implement change. It is rarely up to the author(s) to enact the suggested change. Gallop makes a good point that the steroid ban is an example of change that was enacted by most racing jurisdictions.
On sale horses - yes rules and testing have been implemented for sale horses.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
“Just as physicians see parts of the human experience that are not pretty and so do veterinarians in horse racing.”
Dr. Arthur, you probably know that when a resume and a cover letter is forwarded to a prospective employer, the presence of a typo or a grammatical error in either document almost automatically disqualifies the job applicant from any further serious consideration.
I’m not a vet. I’m not in a position to intelligently comment on the issues and practices of the vets in the racing industry.
But I do know that the word “and” does not belong in the concluding sentence found in the introductory paragraph of your rebuttal.
And thus, your “resume” has been weakened by your lack of attention to detail, which is always an indispensable factor in the art of persuading others that your recommendations should be taken seriously.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Don, please tell us you are kidding? Because anyone that criticizes internet grammar or spelling ASAP is often dismissed out of hand as having nothing to offer to the conversation, hence only the offer of a high school english lesson.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
As for joint injections: this issue was discussed. What is the right answer without adequate research? Just Say No would have been Kumbaya. The RMTC has announced a major research effort towards glucocorticoid drug testing research which should lead to profound changes on how intra-articular injections are regulated.The AAEP supports the RMTC. The veterinarians on the Racing Task Force know this issue well; well enough to know it is complicated and complex.
Why not just use European rules for joint injections? - please tell me someone.
Deep Throat Vet: Colleagues, Cortisone Hurting the Game
By John Pricci - JOHN PRICCI BLOG
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
“A big problem is that horsemen don’t want to lose the use of cortisone. [With proper diagnosis of leg issues] there’s no good reason for cortisone to be injected within 25 days. [Use the] European rules. That horsemen want to inject cortisone within seven days of a race is extremely common. Cortisone is the silent killer.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Sorry - I forgot
“The veterinarians on the Racing Task Force know this issue well; well enough to know it is complicated and complex”
They mean that horse racing is a permanent stimulus package for the veterinary profession. How could I forget.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Ooooo, just can’t let this one pass without my usual….so Gallop136, mark me down for one response in each of your categories, with a double no-lasix, please. No need for the personal medication story - everybody knows my tune already.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
What type of cat fight would break out if you got the AAEP in the same room with the FEI medications committee???…. I believe Dr Tim Ober is an AAEP member and a member of the FEI med committee (could be wrong)
Hey, Paulick, dial him up and see what he has to say about the chasm of difference between what the FEI deems in the best interest of horse welfare and fair competition vs NA racing’s hodgepodge of racing jurisdictions or the AAEP white paper for that matter… How can there be such a divergence of opinion in the medical community and then expect everyone to not question the various stances?
It’s a tough nut to crack, but this is a much travelled road of self interested parties and hidden agendas which have left many people giving up and just rolling into the ditch to avoid the traffic….
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
If we’re not allowed to use race day medications, we wont get all those european bleeders they ship over here to race, and we wont have the opportunity to continue to damage our gene pool. Well, more damage that what steroid abuses have done, that is.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Sale horses? The sale companies have done nothing but pass the buck to the buyer. At $500 a pop, the buyer can have his horses tested for steroids..with a right of return if it comes up positive. I say charge the consignors an extra $500 and randomly test one horse from their consignment..the odds drastically improve on the side of so-called ’steroid banning’.
And if you really think a racing jurisdiction with ‘zero tolerance’ on the books is any better than others, check out what they actually test for…there’s a reason ‘cobra venom, etc.’ isn’t spelled out in their rules…if you don’t test for it, you won’t find it.
We need to start testing and quit giving lip service.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
No, Barbara, I am not kidding. I am quite serious.
I don’t think that it’s unreasonable to ask that Dr. Arthur engage in the same level of attention to detail when he is writing letters that, overall, characterizes his commitment to the care and well-being of animals, about whom he obviously cares deeply.
Moreover, there is absolutely no such thing as “Internet grammar.”
Where did this bizarre idea come from? Where can it be instantly cremated? We’re not 11-year olds “texting” strings of nonsensical acronyms to our playground pals. This is an adult forum.
No technological invention or innovation can absolve the present-day writer of a poorly written sentence, simply because the standards of previous mediums of expression are now arbitrarily considered, by some of us, to be no longer valid or relevant.
Finally, the error referred to is one commonly found in grade school, not high school-level composition, which makes it all the more notable (also commonplace at that plebian educational level is the misguided creation of the uncapitalized word, “english,” when it used in the context of a language).
Dr. Arthur, if you’re reading this, please accept my apology for having to print a distracting additional comment that has nothing to do with the issues that you are addressing with sincere commitment and resolve.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
“* In those jurisdictions that practice it, racetrack management must discontinue the coercion of trainers to enter horses according to stall allotment”
There is a better chance of G Rarick endorsing Rick Dutrow for French Premier than this has of happening.
Dray, you seem like a good guy who is concerned about the sport but where has it been shown that bleeding is inheireted, that the “gene pool” is affected by medications and you do realize that there are far more horses that are purchased in the USA that race in Europe than vice versa.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Hey Donnie, I’s thinkin’ ya meant to write “when IT’s used in the context of language”, not IT. You’re dismissed;)
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
C’mon everyone, let’s everyone just take responsibilty for their own actions and behave themselves. It’s not really that hard. If a guy or a gal want to be a “wise guy” and try and manipulate a situation beyond legal or humane means to their advantage, let’s start “snitching” on them and kick their butt out of the business! Racetracker’s are famous for not telling on their neighbors even though they are doing something to a horse that may not be right. Stop the BS, and start acting like everyone else is obeying the rules too. Trying to out cheat the system or your fellow horsemen is no longer in vogue. In my racing world, willful violators would be looking for another job or hobby. How’s that?
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I am not normally a blogger but have followed some of this discussion out of personal interest and cannot resist the invitation to share my opinion.
IMHO, horse racing has vets doing what they do because we have created an unintentional disregard for what the sport demands horses to do. Without belaboring the points, racehorses are not designed (phenotypically) to perform at the level and intensity that we ask them to.
Drugs and myriad therapies make up the difference between the failure of the horses’ bodies to hold up (or even thrive) and the ridiculously high performance level expected of them. Whether it’s a 5K claimer or a $5 mil stakes horses, there is an expectation and a performance bar to meet; albeit at widely different intensity levels. Further, regardless of the actual performance of any particular horse, some drugs and therapies are used as prophylaxis, and that sometimes causes more problems which require more drugs to fix. I think what goes on in vet trucks throughout the backsides of the US is an effect and not cause.
If you want to be cruel to a horse, put him on a 7-10 mile weekly gallop schedule for 8 months, with 3-4 3/8 to 3/4 mile works and a race or two each month, and give him nothing but hay, oats and water. Oh yeah, he gets out of his 10X10 stall 45 minutes per day for that “exercise”. The wear and tear is immense. It’s a wonder they don’t need psychotropics (I might argue that psychotropic effects are secondary effects to some therapies we give them. If you’re in pain all the time and the drug takes away the pain, you “feel” better).
We have some equine drug problems that are self inflicted and we have a horse population that has, over time, become accustomed to, even dependent upon, that regimen to survive through breeding selection criteria and managment. We need incremental regression of many currently used drugs and therapies which weaken, not strengthen, the horse. (I do also believe that the incentives to do what they do have many vets in a no-win positon; treat or starve.
I subscribe to the idea that taking care of the horse is the key to our business success, and also realize that our industry has grown fat and incompetent during decades of abuse of that principle. Let’s get the priorities right with the animal and the other remedies we need (entry and claiming rules, security, breeding selection practices, schedules, etc) will become apparent to us.
PS: Typing errors matter in resumes and research papers but not blogs. Get a life, Don.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Very amusing banter here. Thanks for the entertainment. One thing I don’t see mentioned by Dr. Arthur is the participation by the vets themselves in these harmful practices. Most of them begin and end with the vet. How often do you think the suggestions for treatments come from the vet? Who brought in new substances like Clenbuterol, EPO and Cobra venom? Trainers are ultimately responsible for what is done to a horse, but where is the reproach for the vets’ culpability? They are only disciplined when they are caught red-handed with a banned substance, but whenever a trainer is suspended, there is a guilty vet too. Vets don’t make much money off of the “hay, oats and water” approach.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
May I fix the meaning of run-on sentence that I hacked together?
Our drug problems are self inflicted and the horse population has become dependent on those drugs and therapies because we have selectively bred them over time to perform with and be dependent upon those drugs. And our management of the horse population has contributed to that dependency. In other words, our current horse racing system will not function as it does now (# starts, #races, pattern of racing etc, ) without them.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:15 pm
I appreciate Dr. Arthur’s reasoned approach but the one thing he doesn’t address is how the AAEP or any other group is going to get this agenda approved by all the different state regulatorss. Wasn’t that Paulick’s major beef with the report?
February 24th, 2009 at 8:29 am
PP has it mostly right. it appears the proposal here is to give all vets a trainers license and get it over with. how stupid ! most of them do not have a clue relative to training horses. obviously Arthur was a strong proponent behind Shapiro’s edict for synthetic surfaces.
the european system of training doesn’t geographically allow for trainers to have access to every horse in the entries in an hour.
vets are horse doctors and should called when one is sick, hurt or dying ! Let’s put Frankenstein back in his box !
February 24th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Well stated PP. Arthur does not find much fault with his own profession. Vets should come to the barn area with an empty truck and have to get their meds dispensed to them. This would virtually eliminate their ability to administer banned substances. Vets have been controlling American racing for far too long. Vets are not near as good at training horses as they think they are and they do not have the best interest of the horse in mind as they would have you believe!!
February 24th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Dr. Arthur’s “Just Say Yes” approach to drugs whose effects have not been adequately researched (by his own account) may be another reason why trainers at Santa Anita complain that the CHRB is using their horses as lab rats.
February 24th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Dr. Arthur’s comment about cortisone and injections being a ” Just say no would be Kumbaya” statement is the most ludicrous of his defense of his white paper. The fact that they discussed and shelved the topic is not surprising. If you scroll through list of participants of the Task Force, the racetrack vets involved mostly came from the most popular big vet practices at every major venue in the states. Why are they popular and so prestigious? To find out, just try saying no.
February 25th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Apparently we have resolved:
11 problems concerning syntax, verbage & hanging chads.
38 prescriptions for a veterinary condition that exists somewhere else.
Steroids are naughty.
Horses are cheaper than lab rats? Wait till PETA hears about that.
People should do the right thing because it is fun.
The horse isn’t talking because he swallowed some cobra venon, and Ray Paulick has qualified to be an usher at the UN.
I tend to agree with California Breeder in that the first step has to be uniformity. The who what and where of veterinary practices, or for that matter training racehorses is about $$$, politcs and the sad fact that people are forced to spend more time covering their own ass than doing the right thing — if you can even define that in the current environment. Without consistency in application, all ideas –good or bad — end at the state line.