Updated on 10/24/2012 3:26PM

Keeneland: State vets fail to administer Lasix to horse prior to race

Email

LEXINGTON, Ky. – For the second time in nearly three weeks, state veterinarians made an error regarding the administration of furosemide to a horse entered at Keeneland. The horse, a heavy favorite in Wednesday's fourth race, was scheduled to run on the anti-bleeding medication, but was forced to race without it.

Infrattini, trained by Paul McGee and owned by Mike Zlaket’s Z Thoroughbreds, finished first anyway without the medication, the first time he has run in his 14 races without the drug. The horse was announced to be running without Lasix in a “program change” throughout the early afternoon, and the change appeared on the bottom of the video feed scroll.

Dr. Mary Scollay, the equine medical director for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, said the error occurred because of a mix-up in vet’s records over the location of the horse. She said state vets have already reviewed how the error occurred and have put in place a new protocol to avoid making a similar mistake.

McGee said that state veterinary personnel took the blame.

“They took full responsibility for the oversight, and they were apologetic,” McGee said. “But it doesn’t sit very well with me, and it doesn’t sit well with Mr. Zlaket.”

McGee said that he decided to run Infrattini because “the horse doesn’t have a history of bleeding.”

The KHRC took over responsibility for raceday furosemide shots at the start of the Keeneland meeting on Oct. 5. On opening day, state vets gave furosemide to a horse who was not scheduled to receive it. That horse finished second.

Dennis Geier More than 1 year ago
THE MAIN PROBLEM I SEE HERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD IF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE THE STATE VETS STARTED GIVING LX THE HORSE WOULD HAVE BEEN SCRATCHED THE TRAINER AND VET BOTH FINED BUT SINCE IT IS DONE BY THE STATE NO ONE IS PUNISHED THEY PLAY BY DIFFERENT RULES AND GUESS WHAT IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN GOOD JOB DR MARY
Jennie Rees More than 1 year ago
The vets should have known where the horse was from his pre-race exam.
Ange More than 1 year ago
And again, just as I said when the horse was "accidentally" given Lasix when it doesn't run on Lasix, why didn't the people involved in the horse's care raise the red flag? I would have been in the racing office asking WTF?
Thomas Cook More than 1 year ago
It is the resposibility of the trainer and or assistant to coordinate with vets and be present during administration of any meds to ensure this doesn't occur. This happens even in jurisdictions where regular vets give lasix. Only being hyped because of Kentucky's new rule to help eliminate the overages and illegal adjunct meds.
DRFInsidePost More than 1 year ago
The article has been corrected to fix the description of the earlier incident.
P More than 1 year ago
As cited by others, there is a mistake with the history of errors. On October 5th - Exothermic - ran in the 7th, finishing 2nd, despite having been given Lasix in error. The program didn't indicate he was on it and trainer Rusty Arnold (and the owners) did not want him on it.
Mark D More than 1 year ago
If the "horse doesn't have a history of bleeding"...then why is he on lasix??
lostnconfused More than 1 year ago
Most horses are routinely "ok'd" for lasix before they run their 2 y.o. maiden race.
Barbara Bowen More than 1 year ago
Matt, I thought the first incident was an opposite mistake of this one, where they administered Lasix to a horse that wasn't supposed to run on it?
Shelby Lang More than 1 year ago
The horse earlier in the meet got lasix and was not supposed to get it. This one supposed to get it and did not.