What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Wanda — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:12:53 GMT

sceptre:You are so right, we are on the same page. Bottom line is do right by every horse you have in the barn. Not just the ones next to the tack room.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

stardust — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:40:35 GMT

Gary

Brain exercise works our brains so we can stay healthy mentally when we get older. Physical exercise is very important as well to stay in good shape. It totally makes sense that with any animal, not just a horse, the same would hold true. I find that when I don't exercise, I get really sluggish and stiff and tend to get more injuries. I like your post.

sceptre What is the main reason for not getting the x-rays. I would think maybe money? I feel that it would be worth it to a trainer or owner to spend that extra money to make sure their horse is really ready for the race. Just an added expense but worth it. I guess I am thinking out loud.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

sceptre — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:24:29 GMT

Wanda, it seems we're essentially on the same page...As far as the icing issue: my point simply was that it can (at times) mask some problems (i.e. mask them from the vet's pre-race inspection). As to the x-rays, etc.: I'm well aware that most owners and/or trainers won't agree to such regular expenses-if they did this may not be an issue. I'm suggesting that much closer scrutiny is required so that many catastrophic injuries can be avoided. There is also a blood test (supposedly inexpensive) which may soon become available that will detect some early bony abnormalities-this will help, but is likely too limited in its scope. So it will cost many bucks for us to far better protect these horses. One method would be to insist on timely regular monitoring of this kind (scans, x-rays, etc.) at the owners' expense. Another could be for the expense to be incurred by the individual tracks/state, etc.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Gary — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:52:32 GMT

Dr. Durenberger,

As a thoroughbred owner I appreciate the job that you do. I have run by own horses down the shed row for vets. The only problem that I see with this type of inspection is related to my own 62 yr. old legs. If you saw me run my first steps in the gym, you would call an ambulance early. But if you came back after I was warmed up, you might marvel at the 20 ft. jump shots I was making. Aren't there some horses who are sound, but need to work out the "kinks"?

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Wanda — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:34:28 GMT

sceptre: Yes I agree about x-rays but until owners start requesting them for the welfare of their horses, some trainers will not ask to have them done. As far as icing before they run it has been in my opinion overrated. Better to ice them in between races if there is any heat than try to do it race day. By the time they go to the gate any numbness has worn off.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

stardust — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:44:03 GMT

Asst. Hotwalker

Right On. I totally agree. :)

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

stardust — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:43:09 GMT

What I believe is that if this reall were to occur, the fields would be a lot smaller. There would be a lot of horses scratched and in the barn instead of dead on he track with a breakdown. I think this is s great idea. Love this article and all people that love horses should not have one problem with it.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

stardust — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:40:40 GMT

Yeah what if? Great article and just imagine what if with our past fatalities. We will never know but what if.

Good job!

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Nancy J — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:25:08 GMT

Excellent article and thought provoking. If x-rays become the standard.....After trotting out on a pavement ....then....Digital X-rays should be cheaper and much quicker. They can also quickly be referenced over time to check progression of healing or injury or re-injury.

I often see the argument they (horses) should all be out free and in the wild. In the wild, if there is a problem, the infirm become dinner. It is swift, it is not gentle, it is survival of the most fit. They do not get retired to breed.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

sceptre — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 01:44:19 GMT

Wanda, certainly this all about the morality issue. Yes, I suppose with no meds available to them, less injuries would be "masked", but icing also masks injuries. To repeat, however,- many lesions with potentially devastating consequences go unnoticed by trainers and vets. Notice what occurred at the Fair Grounds during training a few weeks ago. Their trainers and vets (including the association's vet) were essentially dumbfounded. Clearly our racehorses require far closer scrutiny and more sophisticated observation. One can easily argue that until such exists (or is routinely practiced) there is no place for horseracing.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Wanda — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:11:09 GMT

sceptre: I don't think for a minute that these inspections are a "near cure all" but there is a moral issue at stake as well. You can't keep running a horse that isn't 100%, and owners put pressure on trainers to enter. If you have educated owners maybe it would help but I like the idea of NO pre-race meds someone else commented on. The whole mind set on training would do a 180 turn if you had to give them time off for minor injuries.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

doc — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:22:21 GMT

Dr. Durenberger makes a noble and important set of points. I have been there many times as a commission veterinarian. It all comes down to the conviction of doing the best job you can possibly do, not the most popular job believe me. I have been shouted at, shunned and challenged on exactly such a call. Keep on with integrity !

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Katie — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:50:09 GMT

Bravo to all the hard-working vets doing this work. All tracks should do these inspections. Will it solve all the problems? No. But if racing is to truly be the noble sport it is portrayed as, we must do everything we can to help the horse succeed.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Asst. Hotwalker — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:32:43 GMT

I have seen many trainers, who have no business with a trainers licence. They often try to sneak an unsound horse past the pre-race exam,and the result is all too predictable. Racing should go back to hay, oats and water. Zero drugs, is the best policy for the safety of both horse and rider.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

sceptre — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:15:27 GMT

Agree with downhomesunset's sentiments...But, most of the comments expressed on this blog seem to suggest that these pre-race vet "inspections" are a near cure all. Yes, they're better than nothing, but are a far cry from adequately (or reasonably) protecting these innocent creatures. If we really cared about them , we'd insist on a far more comprehensive oversight. These track vets should be more up front in voicing the inadequacies of their inspections.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Amanda — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:05:14 GMT

Any horse that needs bute, banamine, heavy icing or pain blockers like Equi-Block or EPF (which are fantastic by the way for horses recovering from injuries) should not start. End of story. Sound horses are not hard to find if we take care of them and take it easy when they are off their game. Simply taking the time to build bone density, muscle and cardio health and to see a potential flare up would save lives.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

downhomesunset — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:19:04 GMT

I see people saying "especially for races on TV or top races". That disgusts me. Are you saying that because $5000/maiden claimers are less important than the horses in the spotlight? This should be an industry wide mandatory practice. If a racetrack cries poverty at $6 / horse, than maybe the tracks management doesn't really care about other safety measures either. I hope that these inspections become wide widespread soon. Until then, be careful out there,everyone

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Sandra — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:43:07 GMT

We had a new state vet at Bay Meadows a few years ago, and she insisted that all horses trot for her during the morning pre-race inspection. Now, usually the vets only request that you just walk at the most, but often they just have us turn them around in the stall. We all know that if you want to see unsoundness, you'd better trot them. But all the horsemen howled, because you could stand 50 feet away and see whether or not your neighbor's horse was a good claim, or a layup about to happen. So horsemen complained that they would lose all their good horses by claim and she left shortly after that.

IMHO, we ought to have a privacy barn that everyone has to report to with their horse for a soundness examination. And then the horse ought to be vigorously trotted on a hard surface. That would separate the wheat from the chaff.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Abbie Knowles — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:32:11 GMT

This is a great article to read. Thank you for all you do to make racing safer for the horses and jockeys. You obviously care very deeply as most Vets do. Vets are well paid but they do a difficult job well and deserve to be. Hope you can keep getting the message across and that racing becomes a safer sport all round!

God Bless

Best Wishes

Abbie

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Rggc — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:00:44 GMT

Thanks you for all the lives you have saved both human and equine. May many other vets and racetracks read this column and learn from it. If we don't take the extra steps it takes to safe guard our horses and the jockeys that ride them we will either 1) have some outside agency do it for us or 2) be shunned and shut down for being deemed inhumane and down right stupid.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Terry — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:35:24 GMT

Amen, Noelle, my sentiments exactly. When our horses would periodically get a leg injury, the vet didn't even want them to have bute (pain-killer) because the more it hurt, the less the horse moved around on it & subsequently the faster it healed.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Wanda — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:53:23 GMT

Thank You for the sometimes thankless job you do every day. It's funny but I commented on this subject some weeks ago on one of the blog sites at Bloodhorse.com. I'll say it again that most commission vets do what's best for the horse and the betting public every day.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

horsenut23 — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:29:11 GMT

Thank you for what you do, especially in spite of the critics. It is amazing that so many in the business, only see the horse as a "business", and can't treat these beautiful animals with some respect and compassion. Pre-race vet checks should be made mandatory, especially for TV races.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Michelle — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:16:05 GMT

Thanks for what you do. Vet checks should be mandatory at every track. There are lives at stake. Some people seem to think that the horses are expendable. What about the jockeys? Every effort should be made to keep both the horses and jockeys safe.

re: What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Noelle — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:38:34 GMT

I wonder how many horses who needed anti-inflammatory medication 18 hours prior to a race and icing immediately prior have broken down on the track because there was no pre-race veterinary exam or because the vet missed the hint the horse gave that something was wrong.

I also wonder why anti-inflammatories and icing are permitted anywhere near race day. Symptoms that require anti-inflammatory drugs and icing so soon before a race ought to disqualify the horse from running.

Maybe if these things weren’t permitted, it wouldn’t take an super-alert, super-careful veterinarian to read the horse’s pre-race body language, because maybe the horse would still be exhibiting the readily visible symptoms that were there 18 hours earlier when the anti-inflammatory was administered and before the icing.