- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Having been unable to elicit an explanation from the forum’s Aidan the following item may be of interest;
http://www.troyrecord.com/site/news.cfm … 1001&rfi=6What would you prefer O’Brien to do – not run the horses at all?
Or run them on lasix without the prior consent of the officials?
Don’t see what he did wrong to be honest.
Sounds like another sour grapes pedant to me.
I can’t imagine that even the most international trainers are intimately familiar with all the details of medical law in every country, and this was a relatively unusual circumstance where an animal welfare issue had forced a change in plan. It makes sense that O’Brien would ask the question if he was uncertain what the ruling would be, after all if you don’t ask, you don’t get.
Officials stated that similar requests had been granted to other trainers (with the same penalty) – are all those other trainers similarly incompetant?
A typical non-news story written by someone with an axe to grind.
To explain what actually happened.
Aidan, who normally puts all American runners on Lasix, sent through the appropriate paperwork to put some of his runners on Lasix at the two day Breeders’ Cup meeting before the Entry deadline of 10am Tuesday before the race. These horses were obviously marked as such in the race programme and the media. I can let you know in the morning which they were if required.
However during racing on Friday (we presume after one of his horse bled) he, in consulation with his own vet and his vet on site, decided to put all the horses on lasix for Saturday.
The state vet drew up the paperwork and put them on that afternoon and an announcement to that effect was relayed over the tannoy on Friday.
I’m sure the change will have been mentioned on various media outlets during Saturday’s coverage as well.
Apparently this is a fairly usual procedure at Santa Anita (the stewards allowing changes of medication, equipment such as blinkers, changes of jockeys etc) and the correct course of action was taken.
Aidan saw the stewards on Friday afternoon and they fined him $2,500 per horse, which is at the lower end of the scale, for the late declaration.
In truth it seems like a change of heart with the welfare of his horse at the forefront. Many trainers try not to use Lasix unless they think the horse needs it but sometimes the circumstances (climate etc) suggest it would be better to use it.
Can’t really see the problem myself; nobody got hurt; no horse was injured.
I clearly heard the announcement at the track that certain horses would run on Lasix. Just marked the programme accordingly – if the " L" wasn’t already present.Maybe the writer is hinting that some ante-post punters got "short-changed" or something, but as my selection, HenrytheNavigator ( finished 2nd), was the only one of Aidan’s to run well, imo, I wouldn’t think there was much bother.
I guess if anybody really wanted to "stir it", maybe they should look at the some of the shennanigins concerning this year’s English Derby entries, but I’ve moved on, so perhaps we all should.
Pretty sure A o’B wouldn’t be too worried. Fines seem to be an accepted part of the racing game.No problem Beauzam (great name by the way!).
Aidan added Lasix to Westphalia (Juvenile Turf) on Saturday (he had been the only horse in the race without it)
He added Lasix to Soldier of Fortune and Red Rock Canyon (Turf) on Saturday) just leaving the winner Conduit and Eagle Mountain (the first two home) to race without it.
He added Lasix to Duke of Marmalade in the Classic just leaving Casino Drive (who was last) to race without it.
He’d already declared Henrythenavigator on it at the time of Entry.
His horse which got nearest to victory – Heart Shaped in the Juvenile Fillies Turf – had been declared on it at Entry time as had US Ranger which represented him in the Mile.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.