Racing journalist does his job shock

Greg Wood has already done his job properly for years. He's different class and not afraid to **** folk off who deserve to be pissed off unlike every single journalist at the RP.
 
Last edited:
I actually thad aright go at the BHA and told them they should get there fingers out their asses and start thinking more about horses and owners by asking themselves should they be banning a medicine such as tranexamic acid? "It something we are looking into" Taking their fookin time

To enlighten those who don't know tranexamic acid is not a drug in the sense it does anything to make a horse run faster or slow him down. It is a medicine and doesn't deserve to be called a "DRUG" which is mainly associated with mad junkies and the doping of horses and the like.

Women who have heavy periods use it on a regular basis to stop blod clotting from breaking down and reducing bleeding

The BHA should put themselves in an owners place. Let's say for example an owner invests 250K into racing by purchasing a yearling and then find out he's a bleeder. Because he is not allowed to run the horse on a medicine that can help prevent that he's just lost 250K and so has racing.

Basically most trainers think they are a bunch of a$$holes and one trainer actually told them he was going to run his horse on tranexamic acid and apparently those in charge at the time turned a blind eye to it and the horse won the Cheltenham Gold Cup on it.

As Nicky Henderson said at the time he didn't think he was doing anything terribly wrong.

I simply can't see why they should ban this medicine if it means a perfectly good horse can take part without having an advantage over others......... If anyone can come up with a reason medical or other wise I'd love to hear it.

I doubt if half the members of the BHA even knew what tranexamic acid was until they pulled Nicky up for it.
 
Women who have heavy periods use it on a regular basis to stop blod clotting from breaking down and reducing bleeding
Click to expand...

Does it stop them snapping at you when you leave the toilet lid up or sit around farting on the sofa all evening?
 
The basic reason is that covering up these flaws in the breed helps to perpetuate them.
 
Tanlic said:
I simply can't see why they should ban this medicine if it means a perfectly good horse can take part without having an advantage over others......... If anyone can come up with a reason medical or other wise I'd love to hear it.
Click to expand...

A horse that bleeds persistently, isn't 'perfectly good' isn't that the point? If a horse takes medication to prevent it bleeding, by definition, it must be considered performance enhancing.
 
I can't believe anybody thinks it is a good idea to legalise "medecine". The US breeding industry is going down the toilet because of 'medecine' which covers up an animals frailties, other wise known as unsoundness. How can we actually discern the best of the breed if we're covering up unsoundness. The principle on which we race horses is to discern the best i.e the quickest, toughest, soundest of the breed. A horse that needs medecine be it Tranexamic acid, bute or lasix to run is not a perfectly good horse.

People buy horses every day that are no good for one reason or another it's part of the game and so unforunately is cheating which is what you're trying to legitimise.
 
davidjohnson said:
A horse that bleeds persistently, isn't 'perfectly good' isn't that the point? If a horse takes medication to prevent it bleeding, by definition, it must be considered performance enhancing.
Click to expand...
That's a crock and you know it. A nose band is performance enhancing maybe we should ban them too. IT DON"T MUST ANYTHING..must is a cop out.



The level of enhancing the horses performance is absolute zero if he runs 2 races one on the medicine and one without and doesn't bleed. You give it to a horse who doesn't bleed will it make him go faster or see out a race better.....NO! would be my guess, it will not, so how the hell can they say it's performance enhancing ?

Typical British upper crust attitude they write something down and everything comes under that law whether we think it's morally wrong or not.


I can't agree it is wrong to treat a sick animal so he can enjoy what he was bred to do......It's complete nonsense
 
Sheikh said:
I can't believe anybody thinks it is a good idea to legalise "medecine". The US breeding industry is going down the toilet because of 'medecine' which covers up an animals frailties, other wise known as unsoundness. How can we actually discern the best of the breed if we're covering up unsoundness. The principle on which we race horses is to discern the best i.e the quickest, toughest, soundest of the breed. A horse that needs medecine be it Tranexamic acid, bute or lasix to run is not a perfectly good horse.

People buy horses every day that are no good for one reason or another it's part of the game and so unforunately is cheating which is what you're trying to legitimise.
Click to expand...
The USA were responsible for 5 of the top Leading sires by yearling price last year so they are hardly going down the drain. They were hit harder than most by the 2008 crash and the let's blame it on the medicine brigade got to work.

It is only inevitable that things would change re breeding locations. In Europe for years we bought the best the USA had to offer which helped strengthen our breeding. Now we have Frankel but his great grand daddy came from where? not the Uk not France not Europe but Canada and grandma the USA

In 20 years time we could be going cap in hand to the Asians to get the best available.

To be frank I couldn't care less what the yanks do re medicine. I am talking about one particular medicine that I feel trainers should be allowed and have been using for years by the score and I don't see any horses hair falling out or their ears dropping off.....the medicine in question has no side affects related to breeding.
 
You're not really in touch with the reality of the situation. Foreign investment in young US stock has plummeted as buyers can not trust the results achieved by their parents on the track.Bleeding (exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage ) is a hereditary trait.

The use of drugs weakens the breed . It covers up frailties and allows inferior animals to defeat genuinely tough horses. It also allows them an undeserved place at stud.
 
Last edited:
Are horses that bleed more inherently unsound than others?

And is bleeding passed down generations? (think it might be)

If answer is no to above then the breeding angle is a non starter in my book. And the drug should be allowed. no good reason why not

If yes to either of the above then its quite simple. Why not allow the drug for jumpers? Not exactly an issue with breeding there is there?
 
a horse bleeds due a weakness in the internal system, bleeding is brought on by stress (ie taking part in a horse race). Masking that bleed just hides the fault in the horse. It doesnt fix it. If you really dont give two shits about the health of a horse then by all means go masking every fault they may have.
 
Sheikh said:
I can't believe anybody thinks it is a good idea to legalise "medecine". The US breeding industry is going down the toilet because of 'medecine' which covers up an animals frailties, other wise known as unsoundness. How can we actually discern the best of the breed if we're covering up unsoundness. The principle on which we race horses is to discern the best i.e the quickest, toughest, soundest of the breed. A horse that needs medecine be it Tranexamic acid, bute or lasix to run is not a perfectly good horse.

People buy horses every day that are no good for one reason or another it's part of the game and so unforunately is cheating which is what you're trying to legitimise.
Click to expand...


Couldn't agree more if I tried.
 
The fact that certain people have critically looked at the TA issue, decided to flout the regulations and administer an undetectable dose (or so they thought) makes me think that:

1. Many people in racing (just like every other sport) prefer to make their own decision about what is acceptable and what is not. And ignore the authorities.
2. They would probably wish to make their own decisions about other medications on the banned list. Particularly if they thought they would get away with it.
 
Last edited:
"masking a fault?" Thats akin to saying someone should not have a condition treated because "its better for their health"

Im witn Tanlic here and still waiting for any good reason why jumpers (which is the case in point here) should not be treated.
 
I await any good reason why you would break the rules which are clearly set out.

And I say it again. The fact that Henderson / Main / whoever seem to have calculated that this was a risk worth taking, be it for the horse's health or to enhance performance in spite of it being CLEARLY AGAINST THE RULES is disturbing.
 
Is it an artifical stimulent though ? What about a athlete who has diabetes and takes insulin ? Enhances their performance from what it natually would bé doesnt it ?
 
Clive it doesnt stop the strain it only stops the evidence (ie the bleeding). A horse bleeding is telling you it shouldnt be bleedin racing!
 
Back
Top