The vet scratch is a baked-in component of the sport. It isn't going away. But is there a way to make the system better, more efficient?
On the one hand is the regulatory vet world, arguing that criticism of their vital role is not only damaging to the sport but often misleading (the latter argument they back up with statistical support).
On the other hand are the trainers and owners on the receiving end of a vet scratch decision who feel that too many sound horses are getting caught up in a system that doesn't effectively account for the subjectivity involved with identifying lameness, and subtle lameness especially.
There's no one way to diagnose a lame horse. There's no one way to read a scan. With that in mind, there are some, both regulator and the regulated alike, who believe they can improve the system without jeopardizing horse welfare.
One of those people is bloodstock agent David Igordo, a member of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act's Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) horsemen's advisory committee.
In this Q&A, Ingordo talks about possible changes to the way horses are monitored in the lead up to big events, ideas to improve transparency for the betting public, and a possible code of conduct. The following has been edited for clarity and brevity.
TDN: What are your main takeaways from the White Abarrio vet scratch situation?
DI: I want it to be clear I'm not passing judgment on the connections or the regulatory vets. My observations as a horseman were that White Abarrio was being looked at quite a bit throughout the week, and I don't think it was fair to the connections or the sport or the gamblers to have the horse get out there and then get scratched.
I have regulatory vets tell me, 'trust me, David, the horse needed to be scratched.' Okay, I take their word. But the thing is, if there were concerns about running the horse throughout the week, all the parties should have just made the tough decision to scratch him before he ever got to the track.
TDN: What can be done to ensure a similar situation doesn't happen again?
DI: We need to sit down and look at our big days and [make sure] the Kentucky Derbies and the Breeders' Cups don't sneak up on our industry. We shouldn't be putting the horses and their connections through this scrutiny the week of the Derby or the week of the Breeders' Cup.
My proposed solution is we need to start this much further out.
Let's get all the proper people in a room and let's come up with a 'Best Practices' protocol to evaluate these horses prior to them even getting entered in the race-come up with something that can really give us confidence we're putting the soundest horses out there.
TDN: Can you point to some examples?
DI: Sure. The Melbourne Cup that just was completed.
In my position on the ADMC, I'm lucky to deal with a very intelligent regulatory vet from Australia. He's in charge of the team for the Melbourne Cup inspections.
These inspections don't start the week of the race-they start quite a bit out. We need to take something like they do for the Melbourne Cup, which is a much longer window of inspection and communicate any extra kind of diagnostics that need to be done.
Not everything they do might suit us here in the U.S. and whatever protocols are put in place need to be customized to our racing here to find a sweet spot of horse safety and allowing horses and their connections to compete.
Some of these things are very definitive. With a PET scan or a CT scan or whatever, it makes it easy for the trainer, his attending vets and his owners to understand, 'my horse isn't going to compete in this race for this reason.'
TDN: In short, a clear set of additional veterinary protocols for everyone to follow over a much longer timeframe leading up to these big events.
DI: And a clear set of expectations for the trainers, the attending vets and the owners of these horses.
TDN: Now, in fairness, regulatory vets have access to a horse's regulatory exam history from all around the country. But these are primarily written records. Do you think video diagnostic aid (like the Sleip app) should be woven into this whole regulatory system? A video can reveal a whole lot more than a set of written notes can.
DI: That Sleip app is a great tool. The trainers I know who work with it on a regular basis talk about integrating it into their training regime. I've spoken to Mark Casse–he's a proponent of it.
From the regulatory side, it would be a great help when horses move from different jurisdictions. It would help the regulatory vet in say, New York, see what the regulatory vet in Kentucky saw–see if he's getting better, he's getting worse or if he stays the same.
We're looking for that consistency and something like the Sleip app could be a great tool.
TDN: The regulatory vet world argues that the process works, and they point to compelling statistical evidence that horses who are scratched for unsoundness are notably more likely to face extended periods of time off than non-scratched horses. They typically take longer to get back on the work tab and to the races. A significant number simply never make it back.
DI: I've heard the regulatory vets make these comments.
Now, I can only look at the population of horses that I'm intimately involved with to speak accurately. And at one point in Cherie's [DeVaux, Ingordo's wife] barn, the horses that were vet scratches the morning of the race typically got back to the races within 45 days of the day they were scratched at the level they were entered at, or, in some cases, a higher level than they were scratched at.
I can also tell you that a lot of our vet scratches were because the horse probably had a bad day or out of an abundance of caution by the regulatory vet. And the ones that did not come back, some might've been fillies we were going to retire anyway, or there was a reason they were retired that wasn't necessarily on soundness.
That's why I believe we should take into account each trainer's individual records. Just like if you have a driver's license and you have no speeding tickets or no accidents in your car, your insurance is different, right? In the insurance world, the healthier and better you are as a person, the lower your insurance rates are.
So how does that pertain to this? I think with all the statistics [HISA] has out there on things like this, I think the horsemen and women that have best practices shouldn't necessarily be treated the same as people that maybe are not as thorough.
TDN: A program to incentivize 'Best Practices' behavior, in other words?
DI: We jog all our horses up. Cherie and her assistants look at these horses. Our vet then comes to look at them. So, there are two sets of eyes inspecting a horse in the programs I'm involved with intimately. That's before the regulatory vet comes.
There are things that could happen when the reg vet sees it. But if you have a trainer that you trust and a vet that's competent, and they're saying, 'look, we don't see it per se. It could be a foot. It could be this. It could be that.' Well, maybe have a different avenue than putting it on a vets' list.
If the reg' vet can honestly say, 'I think this horse is at risk of a catastrophic injury or could really hurt itself,' then by all means they need to say 'no, you're on a vet list.'
The regulatory vets have an awesome responsibility every day. I respect the job they have and what their purpose is. But there should be some way with this rating system idea we're talking about to make it an easier process for the horsemen that still protects the horse.
Sometimes it's very difficult to get off the vets' list because of timing, because of several things. I think we need to look at that part of it to make it fairer for the horse, the horsemen, and still be thorough from a welfare standpoint.
TDN: Now, as a former exercise rider, I can think of dozens of times where trainers (who undoubtedly are under a lot of pressure) didn't react well to news that something's wrong with a horse. I don't think there's one reg vet who hasn't encountered the same reaction. Everything you've outlined so far comes back to the idea of better communication.
DI: 100% that's what needs to happen.
Look, I'm not going to say that I have never had disparaging words for a regulatory vet because I have, with horses I own or I'm involved with. That needs to stop. There needs to be more meeting in the middle at times. The communication between the parties and respect between the parties needs to improve.
There does need to be some kind of code of conduct that the trainers and the vets adhere to. Again, I'm guilty of being upset with the vets and saying things to them that are out of frustration because I don't agree with them. But there's got to be a code of conduct that would be very helpful to everybody involved.
TDN: When it comes to communication, it's not just between the vets and the horsemen. One of the key issues many folks have concerns alerting the general public in a timely and transparent manner about the reasons behind a vet scratch, especially those that occur post-parade. Do you have any ideas about that?
DI: I think that is a very important thing to be transparent about. I don't know why there's not [a uniform system already in place]. This is important to do for respect to our gambling component of the game and to show respect for the betting public.
When a football player is injured, they'll come on and say, 'Peyton Manning was hurt on that play. And they're looking at his ankle and he's out indefinitely.' That's it. End of story.
TDN: One regulatory vet I spoke with suggested having an on-call spokesperson relay this information on big race days, and one of the stewards do it on the lesser race days.
Similarly, some tracks make the reasons for a vet scratch available on Equibase but that's far from a uniform approach. This reg vet thinks Equibase should have this info recorded on Equibase as standard protocol.
Do you think both ideas would help?
DI: I love the idea of having a spokesperson that's articulate and media trained do that. I think it's fantastic and I think they should bolster that person's visibility.
I think any information on horses that we think is pertinent ought to be put on Equibase. When they just put on Equibase, 'unsound,' that's an improper word to use. Unsound is a very strong word. So, put scratched and the reason versus just 'unsound.'
TDN: Okay, you're king for the day. What's the first few thing you do to start fixing the system?
DI: When you say king, just on this subject or…
TDN: No, no, no. You're not touching anything else but this.
DI: I'm a big fan of the sit down, like the old mob movies. But you have to bring all the players in the room and everybody has to talk sensibly to one another.
I'm not just talking about the Breeders' Cup or the executives from the racing commissions or the racetracks. They are definitely part of it. But you have to have practicing veterinarians with great practical veterinary experience involved. And then you've got to get the horsemen in, the trainers with the most experience in dealing with this.
The horsemen at times haven't been well represented in the creation of HISA's regulatory body.
Get the smart kids in the room together, roll their sleeves up and figure out something that will work. It's not going to be perfect ever, but we need to work on it.
The post David Ingordo Q and A on Vet Scratches appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.
