Disturbing article on incidents at race tracks

[Mood Swings]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/us/de ... odayspaper

[Shammy Davis]

Thanks for posting. It is a very disturbing article.

[Bast]

It's a very disturbing piece. A lot of people are going to form a hard opinion based upon it, and will not be easily dissuaded.

[IcouldbeU]

The one quote that really struck me was from the trackvet at Finger Lakes. She said that fatalities are up from 5 yrs ago and also that she does pre-race inspections. Shouldn't she be held partially responsible for the breakdowns then? If its lower class hurt horses that are breaking down then the track vets need to be held to a higher level of responsibility.

[BenB]

As long as bute is legal, no pre race examination will be correct and not even
near correct.

The only way is a zero just like overhere. Tracks are only be accredited when the labs can do their work. When there is no money for examination or blood testing, than close the track.

[Entry Blank]

The one quote that really struck me was from the trackvet at Finger Lakes. She said that fatalities are up from 5 yrs ago and also that she does pre-race inspections. Shouldn't she be held partially responsible for the breakdowns then? If its lower class hurt horses that are breaking down then the track vets need to be held to a higher level of responsibility.

So if the horse jogs sounds on a shank and flex's sound and tendons and ligaments all feel correct and the horse breaks down its the pre-race vets fault? Absurd.

[photofinish]

As long as bute is legal, no pre race examination will be correct and not even
near correct.

The only way is a zero just like overhere. Tracks are only be accredited when the labs can do their work. When there is no money for examination or blood testing, than close the track.

Not sure about racing in the Netherlands specifically, but I am sick to death of hearing about Bute causing the breakdowns. Bute and Banamine do not help a whole helluva lot if there is a big problem. You can take 1/2 a bottle of aspirin or tylenol and it is not going to make you able to run 100 yards n a fratcured leg. Same with horses. 90% of trainers have even realized that excessive amount of Bute actually dull a horse, more than likely because it aggravates their stomach.

The article focused heavily on NM and we certainly have our share of problems, not the least of which is the Racing Commission itself and the Good Ol' Boy network that is out of control here. But the cause of most of the breakdowns here is blocking. Yes, high nerve blocking. It is Standard Operating Procedure on (estimating) 95% of QH and probably at least 50% of TBs. It is the QH mentality. When I first got here the vets kept asking me, every time we got one in, "Need to block?" My response was "Huh??? Uh no thank you." I have run at top tier tracks and at dirtwater tracks, never been anywhere Serapin (most common nerve blocking drug) will test.

If the Powers That Be take away the Bute and Banamine (flunuxin) then the ones who want to run cripples will still block. The ones with tons of money to spend will find something else that serves as an anti- inflammatory. There will always be Something Else. It will just make the playing field tilt even more in the direction of those with unlimited resources. I do not believe that European racing is pure as the driven snow I have stated this over and over again, they just have different things, possibly herbal, probably compounded, that achieve the same results (not bleeding, less catastrophes, etc)

I also believe that the racing surfaces have more to do with catastophes than all the other factors. Race distances have alot to do with it as well. Europe races and trains largely on turf and they largely run more long races. Turf is kinder to a horse turf times tend to run slower. Longer races have slower fractions than 5f or 6f races. It is a Law of Physics : speed=force. Simple deal. Faster you run harder you hit, harder you are on the infrastructure of the animal. This is not rocket science. I always site the example of Great Lakes Downs in MI. I ran there for 3 1/2 years. We had the crappiest horses in the midwest. Our purses were pitiable, there were 2 vets on the entire track and they were partners. We ran a 6 month meet, we ran those horses pretty much every 10-14 days. There was no money for a lot of vet work - you might get $3000 for a mid level claiming win, a whopping $4800 for a MSW win. We couldn't afford to inject joints much. We could afford Bute and Banamine (Bute was a 24 hr withdrawl, Banamine 48hrs). We ran on a 5/8 bull ring with a 4f chute. Track was pretty slow, you could win a 6f MSW in1:16 or 1:17, a 4f MSW in :47+, a mile was a 3 turn race ( usually won in 1:45ish), and 5 1/2f ALW might go in 1:05 and change. For 3 years running we had less fatalities than any other track in the US. Most barns had 7-10 horses per groom, there was not a lot of leg work in the barn. No one had an ice machine, they got ice only pre race if at all (you had to buy it at the gas station across the road). Yet, we did not break very many down. There were Bute and Banamine 20-30 yrs ago, but less breakdowns if the naysayers are to be believed, so maybe it's time we looked hard at surfaces??

Breeding probably plays some role, but I will still look at surface first.

*stepping off of my soapbox and heading out to check my expecting mare now*

[ElPrado]

I'm still believing that American horses are simply under trained. There is no turn out. They are shut up 23 hours a day. It isn't natural for a horse.
If you don't want them on the main track longer, build a track exclusively for training, with the same surface. Get them out longer. Even if all they are doing is walking or jogging, it's better than standing playing with a ball hanging from a rope.

[Patuxet]

The NY Times article is just the first in a four-part series.

Bill Finley has a good follow-up in today's TDN. Here are a couple of quotes from it.

"When it comes to negative publicity and the sport’s image, there has never been anything quite like this dark month of March 2012. This is serious stuff and please don’t think for a second that this is some small storm that will be weathered. The damage done by the Times, “Luck” and the Aqueduct breakdowns is severe and irreversible."

"The industry keeps telling its many critics and enemies that as long as mankind races horses, horses will die. Unfortunately, that’s true. But do they have to die at the alarming rate of1.88 horses per 1,000 starts? That’s the key. That number has to be sliced in half, at least in half. The funny thing is, we had the answer. And we threw it away. According to recently released data from The Jockey Club, the rate of fatalities on dirt surfaces is nearly twice as high as they are on synthetic surfaces."

[reenci]

all that synthetic tracks do is transfer the injuries to the back end of the horse......its the breeding, and drugs.

[reenci]

and as for the stat. that 2x the injuries occur on dirt..well more than 2x the races are on dirt

[Patuxet]

Statistics released just last week by The Jockey Club revealed that for the third straight year thoroughbred racing on synthetic surfaces resulted in a lower equine fatality rate than dirt racing. The fatality rate on synthetic surfaces was 1.09 per 1,000 starts last year, compared with 2.07 per 1,000 starts on dirt. Races conducted on turf had a fatality rate of 1.53 per 1,000 starts in 2011 from 50,362 races run.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/mediaCenter.asp?story=546

reenci: Please share with us the sources of the science that supports your observations.

Thanks!

Allison

[wilf]

Stats can be tweaked and spun to show anything so I don't pay any attention to them. All I know is what I see.......simple. I see that there are fewer breakdowns on artificial surfaces probably because the few tracks that have them are not at the "end of the line" for a horse's career anyway and that any inclement weather rarely does affect the surface negatively. I personally like running on Tapeta as I only have older horses with legs well matured to cope with any stresses. I like training on dirt and shipping in to run on Tapeta,I would not stable there and train on that surface. I don't believe that a growing young horse should train exclusively on artificial , it creates a myriad of hind leg problems that might not otherwise occur on turf or dirt. A good dirt surface is hard to find and even harder to maintain but at Thistledown in Cleveland Ohio they do a fine job indeed ,purses may be low but horses stay sound and happy and can ship anywhere and run well. Mountaineer has a dreadful maintrack base and young horses don't do well there; older horses enjoy the easier conditions of the "book" and the permissive medication rules until they cannot overcome either and end up another statistic. If they are lucky they are re-homed by a fairly good infrastructure of rescue sites. There is no such thing as a bad turf course,only weather and wear and tear as the meet progresses make it tough on the horses. OK?

[Shammy Davis]

reenci: I agree with Patuxet. What is the source of your information? I've read a number of books, studies, and articles on the subject of artificial surfaces. I've been involved with the installation and maintenance of a couple of artificial surfaces. Your statement that injuries on artificial surfaces are moved from the fore to the hind end has not been substantiated by anything I've come across. I'm aware of anecdotal sources, but no statistics or research to suggest the connection you make.

[ct2346]

Statistics released just last week by The Jockey Club revealed that for the third straight year thoroughbred racing on synthetic surfaces resulted in a lower equine fatality rate than dirt racing. The fatality rate on synthetic surfaces was 1.09 per 1,000 starts last year, compared with 2.07 per 1,000 starts on dirt. Races conducted on turf had a fatality rate of 1.53 per 1,000 starts in 2011 from 50,362 races run.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/mediaCenter.asp?story=546

reenci: Please share with us the sources of the science that supports your observations.

Thanks!

Allison

I speculate (note, not cite as facts) whether the number of synthetic tracks, and their presence in the higher end racing centers, have something to do with the disparity between the 1.09 vs 2.07 rates cited. I don't know for a fact, but wonder whether because Chicago, Toronto, LA, and Keeneland are the ones holding synthetic meets (for higher purses?) that there is another factor at work behind that delta. IOTW, if lesser centers with smaller purses, had synthetic surfaces, would the delta hold? Perhaps if purse amounts could in some way work into the analysis a truer guide could occur.