- This topic has 149 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
AHT 11 Feb update from earlier today (ie not “the decision”):
https://www.aht.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Equiflunet-update-11-02-19.pdf
If anyone wants a good chuckle just follow a few prominent pundits on Twitter. Declan Rix, Rory Delargy are just a couple of examples of very quick wit. Thankfully racing returns on Wednesday
The longer the wait, the better the excuse they have to offer I guess
I really wonder how trainers and jockeys can make riding arrangements in such a short period of time.
Of course if racing takes place.BHA twitter feed from 14 minutes ago – “statement coming very shortly”:
and now:
“The British Horseracing Authority has tonight announced a risk-managed return to racing will take place from Wednesday this week. Full statement to follow.”
Poor Newbury no chance of their meeting being rescheduled. Not the same thing having the top races moved to Ascot.
Very often nowadays I despair of this Country, nobody wants to make a decision without consulting the “chicken bones”!
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysThanks, Wit, very helpful.
The risk-managed return detailed in the press release seems the sensible way forward and had become expected. Doesn’t say why a ‘Super Card’ on Friday at Newbury couldn’t have been created from the rescheduled races. Will be quite a lot of extra fixtures next week and beyond.
Saturday will be a bumper day, RTV will struggle to fit it all in smoothly. Cue now trainers complaining about which risk category they have been placed in and how the course a race has been switched to doesn’t suit their horse (Native River?)
Biggest worry now is that a horse from one of the leading yards goes down with EF just before Cheltenham thus ruling out all runners from that stable.
I’m guessing ITV refused to show Newbury on Sunday so that’s why 2 of the races are now at Ascot
If a horse has EF it shouldn’t be at the Festival so all runners should be tested ( and are likely to be tested ) in the week prior to Cheltenham
Also the bio security measures they have in place there will be better than most stables can afford.BHA statement on their way forward
so, as i understand:
– of the 1,000,000 horses in GB, only around 2 per cent (20,000) are racehorses
– the writ of the BHA does not extend beyond that 2 per cent
– DEFRA, whose writ does run over the whole 1,000,000 is not interested in controls over equine flu, since it is not a notifiable disease
– BHA says equine flu is a horse population issue, not a racing issue
– BHA says equine flu is endemic to GB – ie cannot be eradicated, only tried to be controlled as to incidence or timing
– the effects of this strain of flu on vaccinated horses (most racehorses) is mild, but it can set back the training schedule a few weeks
– there are two ways to get antibodies to the flu into a horse:
a) new more effective vaccine is developed, or
b) horse gets flu and manufactures its own antibodies.is that the size of it ?
if so, is there any problem with a trainer following a properly-controlled very-mild-version of a “mumps party”-type exercise to get his/her horses over the problem on his/her timing, rather than leaving the timing to the vagaries of more-or-less inevitable (mis)fortune ?
Apart from much reduced prize money for the rescheduled races, the big issue emerging today is the BHA’s sudden requirement that all horses must have had an EF jab/booster within the last 6 months to be permitted to race. A few days ago the IHRB announced a similar requirement but with a time frame of only within the last 2 months.
I’m sorry but I strongly think the BHA has got the time period wrong. Trainers are outraged! The 6 month rule is affecting many horses who urgently need a prep run for a target or to qualify for something, it is going to tarnish the resumption of racing over the next week or so by the absence of horses. Something that has been sprung overnight will now cause many horses’ training to be interrupted for up to two weeks at a crucial time (vets advise trainers to go easy for a week after vaccination). Some horses (Top Notch in the summer) can react so badly to the needle that they won’t run again this season.
Yes, there was BHA advice to trainers on an 25 Jan but it was not mandatory and, yes, the BHA is scheduling additional opportunities for 23/24 Feb but these will be of no use to stayers aiming for Cheltenham as too close.
They also advised it after cancelling racing last week GM. I can’t say i am for or against the ruling. They could maybe have said when advising trainers, that it’s possible the rule my change.
However, this emergency situation led them to do this suddenly. Is this ideal for some trainers? No, but they were advised, and a lot didn’t take advice. They have their reasons not to of course. I don’t think the buck totally lies with BHA.
Twitter: Jackh1092
Hindsight is 20/20 so make the most of it!Fair point, Jack. What puzzles me is if EF was expected to be so virulent that the BHA felt it would spread like wildfire even among vaccinated horses (it hasn’t) and the IHRB felt it necessary to rule that a horse must have had an injection within 2 months to run (didn’t hear Irish trainers complaining) then why now has the BHA said 6 months? The 4 months difference is surely an admission by the authorities that they were wrong about the spread. Therefore, would it have been any significant greater risk for the BHA to say 9 months and thus save trainers and fans from yet more interruption.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.