I'll Have Another

[Somnambulist]

And there's a problem with that? A good majority of racehorses have issues they work through--just like human athletes. There are going to be quarter cracks, minor aches, tight muscles, sore backs. You deal with it. That's what they did. When it posed a threat to the horse's health, they retired him. That's still the part you're missing. Or ignoring.

Thank you.

I go to a PT for my neck and maintence on my legs sometimes.. does that mean I should never work out? Good Jesus.

[Pronzini]

If only he'd done a better job at clarifying why osteoarthritis was a misleading term than clarifying what type of journalism the article was. He can paint bute as harmless as Tylenol if he wants, same for the anti-inflammatory. If Drape has leeway here than I suppose he does as well. But if he's going to cast doubt on the osteoarthritis diagnosis, I need more science than PR and "headline-grabbing quotes" from Bramlage.

Education is the key--if people want to be educated. I honestly believe that the response has been a little spluttering because it is blowing their minds that supposed journalists and colleagues could put that spin on the facts. It's like when assertions come out of extremists in the Middle East (or anywhere for that matter) and you think how could people believe that? But they can because they want to or they don't know any better or a combination.

The fact this agenda driven misrepresentation is being promoted in the NYT is a tragedy that goes way beyond racing IMO. It's emblematic of a larger problem.

[Ty88]

Racing does nothing unless it's beaten against the head until its bloodied beyond recognition. That's the bigger problem.

No, it's not. The NYT article is misleading and irresponsible journalism. Again, if someone is wrongfully accused of rape, do you let it go because rape exists and is the bigger problem we should be focusing on? No, of course not. The issues are not tied unbreakably together. Saying the NYT did a bad job is not saying that we need to ignore racing's problems. Nor do I believe the only way to address racing's problems is yellow journalism. These are separate issues.

[gravano]

Education is the key--if people want to be educated. I honestly believe that the response has been a little spluttering because it is blowing their minds that supposed journalists and colleagues could put that spin on the facts. It's like when assertions come out of extremists in the Middle East (or anywhere for that matter) and you think how could people believe that? But they can because they want to or they don't know any better or a combination.

The fact this agenda driven misrepresentation is being promoted in the NYT is a tragedy that goes way beyond racing IMO. It's emblematic of a larger problem.

But isn't transparency crucial to education? You can't just want to be educated, you have to have access. For me, that's the bigger issue and the broader goal. I think people should be more afraid when information can only be accessed by a select few than having it open to all.

[Ty88]

Could've fooled me. Seems everyone's more concerned about being angry at the NYT than the issues the articles are pointing to.

Separate topics. In a thread about the NYT, people are going to pick it apart. In a thread about slaughter, or breakdowns, or abuse, or meds, I can promise you unless someone posts an NYT article, it won't be mentioned.

[Ty88]

Not separate topics. The NYT publishes an article, and the response to is slam the NYT instead of looking at the truth in the article or why we're being targeted or how we better our image or how we better protect the horses and gain positive PR.

This topic, by the way, is about I'll Have Another. ;-)

Truth in the article? That's why people slam NYT. There's hardly any. To fix a problem, we have to understand it. Hack jobs like the NYT do not help with that.

[second_glance]

Dr. Bramlage calls out NYT article on IHA "closer to tabloid journalism than in-depth reporting." And he swipes at the July 11 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...#ixzz20bqH5CXx "closer to tabloid reporting

And had to issue a correction, because he wrongly said NYT used its own stats to arrive at the 24 deaths per week stat. They didn't. That data came from state records. If you're going to pillory Drape and the Times, better take Bramlage to task too.

Of course, one could argue that Bramlage wears perhaps too many hats in the industry?

Anyway, I would expect many industry and track vets to leap to the defense of practice as is, rather than considering whether there is a practice of overmedication of racehorses.

[Ty88]

I read the article. It was more truthful than you're making it. They did know prior to the day before the Belmont that the horse had an issue. While there wasn't anything terrible about what they did, they were indeed using drugs and having procedures that indicated this. And while taking x-rays isn't abnormal, it's also disingenous to say they're used very often for no reason whatsoever -- they're taken because they're looking for something. Etc.

And how has tarring and feathering Drape worked out for us? Real well, huh?

"History of issues" it was not, as claimed by Drape. The article was not clear on procedures or medications--either purposefully or foolishly published before those details were obtained. The article clumsily and dishonestly attempted to link IHA's treatment with the treatment of horses that later break down. The article was obviously biased, which is a no-no for anything that's not an opinion piece, whether the bias is true or not. The NYT needs to stop acting like a blog and start acting like a newspaper.

"Worked out for us"? Why does it need to? The IHA team and what they did while attempting to manage an injury in their horse before ultimately retiring him for his better health is in no way anything close to what's wrong with the sport. The article is pointless. Instead of an expose on Penn National, or a discussion about racehorses heading to slaughter, or even an article on O'Neill's suspension, the NYT decided to go for the hot topic and mine for more controversy. That alone speaks to their motive and integrity.

[Somnambulist]

I read the article. It was more truthful than you're making it. ?

Not really.

Drape did in that article what someone would do when they're trying to sound smart to an audience that otherwise doesn't know better. If you know have the knowledge of such a powerful pain killer why not name it. Either because you can't or you're just trying to promote your agenda. His idiocy here is not hiding - it's completely transparent.

How it's horrendous journalism shouldn't even be debatable. I'd be ashamed of myself for putting out a piece of crap like that.

[halo]

Bute and banamine are no more a powerful painkiller for horses than Advil is for me. And they work for about the same period of time. Interestingly he didnt say anything about those being administered 24 hours out, so by race time their effects are negligible. But then, that would take the sting out of his story, wouldnt it.

[5k-claim]

Of course, one could argue that Bramlage wears perhaps too many hats in the industry?

Yeah. One of those is called the "Guy Who Actually Knows What the Hell He is Talking About" hat.

Anyway, I would expect many industry and track vets to leap to the defense of practice as is, rather than considering whether there is a practice of overmedication of racehorses.

Yes, again. Like all vets, Bramlage got into the business to become very, very wealthy. It was either banking or being a vet, and he chose the more lucrative of the two. He has probably never stopped to consider the actual health and well being of horses.

Seriously, people like you and that Solomon lady are the intended audience for that piece and are proof that it hit the mark.

.

[Rainyday]

Nyra was given grief for the extent they were going to which seemingly was directed at the IHA camp. But they were privy to the vet findings on the colt, so were they just trying to ensure that the colt was well enough to run in the Belmont? That nothing could be given to him to have him pass the vet the morning of the race? Did they possibly confer with the IHA team, with vet records in hand, and threaten to scratch him if they didn't?

Um. They were privy to the vet findings in the first place because they had targeted IHA for special treatment. They took no steps to verify the health and wellbeing of the other horses in the race.

And, wow, now we have the NYRA blackmailing the IHA team into scratching him? Holy unfounded speculation, Batman!