AP article today on race track deaths

[JHUshoer20]

[QUOTE=Laurierace;3291702]
99% is from assholes running a dead sore horse hoping he will make it around one last time. [/QUOTE] Ok, This is the job of track vets to try to minimize. Veterinary malpractice is a big problem I’ll acknowledge that. I also know trainers are sometimes caught between a rock and a hard place when they find themselves in the employ of an owner who just wants a winners circle picture for their office and don’t care how they obtain it. People like this can be hard to work for. At lower levels oftentimes a horse can be wore out when it comes into a barn after being bought, claimed, trainer fired, or whatever.

The rest falls into the “shit happens” category.
You don’t think that more than 1%? come on now, your not going to blame the jockey? Who then blames the horseshoer? Watching blame go around can be entertaining!:yes::lol:
George

[Blueshadow]

There are so many problems with these numbers - where to start?

First, the time series is important not merely the cross-section over tracks. If they have the aggregate numbers over five years, the time series must be there too to observe any trends. But what would the time series trends mean given that…

1. There is no national reporting standard or protocol. So some states (WA for example) record the numbers very carefully for the purposes of preventative studies, as did CA for many years and still may through the CHRB’s euthanasia studies. Others don’t. Is that why the numbers for some states are much higher than for others? The numbers for NM include deaths only for a single year as another example of how these statistics could be easily misinterpreted.

2. These are numbers of fatalities in racing only. Not in training in the mornings. The CHRB reports both separately in their annual report - they significantly raise the total. Fatalities per start don’t nearly begin to represent the death rate for horses injured as a result of their participation in racing.

3. The numbers do not (in general, as far as one can conclude from the statistics provided and the weak documentation) include deaths that occur hours, days, weeks or even months after injury occurs during racing or training. I have heard it stated, for example (and thanks are due to my friend Christine for pointing this out to me), that 50% of racehorses that have injuries operated upon suffer subsequently from severe laminities and who knows what percentage of them are euthanized? Obviously these numbers are speculative - but the general point is that where in these numbers are later deaths accounted for?

In general - there needs to be uniform recording and accounting standards across states. Heck PA isn’t even included in some of the reports I’ve seen.
And their needs to be greater transparency about racing related deaths that occur NOT merely during racing but also during training, and as the direct result of both (although it’s not clear how one would set that particular standard).

[Bluey]

—“And their needs to be greater transparency about racing related deaths that occur NOT merely during racing but also during training, and as the direct result of both (although it’s not clear how one would set that particular standard).”—

I would say that, other than racing, there would be much less injuries when just training, as the horses are not putting out a maximum effort.
Any injuries there would probably be close to comparable with training in general, not only race training.:yes:

[Blueshadow]

Bluey I’m going to track down the CA numbers. It’s often but not always during timed works that fatal injuries occur. Let me find the document…

[Blueshadow]

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2007_annual_report.pdf

In fact higher in training than racing in some cases.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Blueshadow;3291804]
http://www.chrb.ca.gov/annual_reports/2007_annual_report.pdf

In fact higher in training than racing in some cases.[/QUOTE]

That is counterintuitive, doesn’t make that much sense, really.
Maybe the numbers alone are not statistically significant, unless compared as a percentage of horses that train and those that race?
Maybe that many more train that never race and that makes bare numbers not comparing apples to apples?

[Blueshadow]

Bluey you make good points. As for statistical significance - it is hard to establish that given the nature in which the statistics are collected. What is the percentage we are looking at? I suspect the racing industry wants us to look at fatal breakdowns per start because that is so low.

But then if we actually included fatalities in training and fatalities some period after the injury occurred as I mentioned above - of what would we take the percentage? All horses in training? And would that be statistically significant?

Impossible to know - which is why I argue that if people are to look at this seriously there needs to be a national protocol/accounting mechanism that is established and followed rigorously.

To establish whether something is statistically significant - one would need to conduct a formal statistical test of the hypothesis that the number of fatal breakdowns is different from zero. Usually - in classical inference - the crucial percentage would be 5%. As the statistics are currently collected - these numbers would probably not pass the test but that is also impossible to establish without a formal test and really good consistent cross-sectional and time-series data…which we don’t have.

[Bluey]

To get really meaningful numbers, we also would need to include knowing how many horses we have in the whole horse industry, how many even start in training and in what disciplines and so on, to have something to compare racing in general with other we do, then break down the numbers in racing itself.

I know that we trained considerably more horses than went to the track and from those some came home without ever running a race, as they didn’t show much once there.
No sense to pay to get outrun.

Then there were the morning glories, that would work promisingly but didn’t deliver once racing.

There are so many ways to count numbers, it is hard to find a protocol that takes them all into consideration and decide where there may be a problem.

I am leaning to what someone proposed, that there are more trainers training badly today, so more horses pushed too much, so more horses breaking down, IF they indeed are more breaking down today than before.

[JHUshoer20]

Blueshadow,
What we do have is this. We have sales upon sales upon sales. There are more of them every year. The numbers of registered foals continues to increase and set new records every year. We all see the headlines and claims. Yet every track out there is crying for horses. Many of them don’t have enough to fill their racing cards.

This only can make us question just what in the world is happening to all these horses? They can’t all be getting bought by Arabs and going overseas:no: With the popularity of them as showhorses at an all time low I doubt if many are going there either:no:

With such record foal crops why can we never seem to make any progress in the racehorse shortage?
George

[Blueshadow]

Welll, in CA last year the yearling market dropped by 25%. All markets here are down, including the 2yo in training market (average, median, numbers sold, the whole kit and whatever). I don’t have numbers in the US on number of TBs that make it to the track - again, a national statistical agency that actually CARED enough to report numbers like that by collecting and aggregating state numbers in a careful and consistent manner would be needed.

I can cite a single study from the UK - so that should be taken with a grain of salt as being representative. A group of over 1000 TB babies were followed over a period of years. Less than 300 of them made it to the racetrack. Where did the rest of them go? We have no idea. But I could make some educated guesses.

[Mardi]

@JHUshoer20;3290647

Problem being that the most horrific tend to be to popular horses in graded stakes races on national TV in front of millions of people.

Yes, thank God.

[DickHertz]

Breakdowns will always happen everyday because:

• Trainers are using EPO & Steroids which makes the horses run beyond their true physical ability

• Vets go into questionable joints without x-raying first.

• Tracks refuse to address the issue of toe grabs (except California). Toe grabs have been proven in multiple studies to have major negative effects both up-front and behind. Horses that wear toe grabs break down with much more frequency than one’s who race with Queen’s plates or XLT’s.

• There are too many hook races because that’s what horses are bred to do these days. Route races are easier on the skeletal sytem of a thoroughbred than a sprint race. If you did a thorough physical exam on 100 sprinters and 100 routers, you’d find the routers are much sounder by a pretty wide margin.

• Vets are too reluctant to scratch lame horses in the post parade. Wednesday night at Penn national in the last race Bruce Kravets sent out a total cripple. Wasn’t scratched, wasn’t pulled up by Angel Quinonez (why, I don’t know, watch the replay, the horse was crippled on the turn and he kept riding), and the horse broke both front legs like Eight Belles. Shame on Bruce Kravets for sending this filly to post (Dropping from $10k to $4k).

• Often, 2 year old in training graduates are coming to the track with frail or already broken bones.

Everyone likes to talk about “no drugs”. Drugs have a therapeutic role in racing and shouldn’t be banned. However, there are about 10-12 drugs that should be banned which would help decrease breakdowns in a big way. It’s too easy to say “ban all drugs”.

[JHUshoer20]

[QUOTE=DickHertz;3291868]

• Tracks refuse to address the issue of toe grabs (except California). Toe grabs have been proven in multiple studies to have major negative effects both up-front and behind. Horses that wear toe grabs break down with much more frequency than one’s who race with Queen’s plates or XLT’s.[/QUOTE] I figured this would come up. Your wrong. 4 states have banned front grabs higher than 4mm. It will soon go countrywide. Problem is that’s feelgood. Trainers haven’t been routinely using them on the front for at least 10 years now so is time to stop scapegoating. You claim to hang around the tracks so just look at them in the paddock. That’s an old worn out tired issue. As for the hinds, why don’t you explain precisely how this is deliterious?

Everyone likes to talk about “no drugs”. Drugs have a therapeutic role in racing and shouldn’t be banned. However, there are about 10-12 drugs that should be banned which would help decrease breakdowns in a big way. It’s too easy to say “ban all drugs”.

Drugs have no place in any sports human or animal. That includes bute, lasix, anything. If animals cant run without drugs then breed some that can.
George

[Blueshadow]

Well isn’t this interesting.

Toe grabs in CA have been banned (ie. subject to length considerations, and farriers must grind them down for racing - but training?) and who knows what the statistical impact will be on breakdown rates - since there are so many other factors implicated based on post-mortem studies and given the fact that record keeping is so poor. Lower standards of licensing in farriery in CA?
Well it would really help if the CHRB and racetracks in CA actually enforced the licensing requirement in the first place - which they don’t. There are unlicensed farriers all over the racetracks here. Usually, they are “family” members.

Dick - sorry, but there is no need for ANY of these drugs. Horses run perfectly effectively in every other racing country in the world without their preventative or other “benefits”. Why can’t North American horses cope without them?

[Thistledown]

Grayson-Jockey Clulb Research Foundation

Has conducted a Welfare of the Racehorse summit. Work is ongoing to report track injuries.

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/summitDisplay.asp?section=31&story=29

Reporting racetracks: http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/resources/tracks.pdf

From the website:

* More than 60 racetracks participating in on-track injury reporting form pilot project
* Approximately 1600 injury reporting forms submitted to temporary injury reporting system
* Electronic system being developed through InCompass Systems Inc.
* Statistics were available for 2008 Welfare and Safety of the Racehorse Summit. 

Contact: Grayson-Jockey Club (859) 224-2850

Susan

[JHUshoer20]

@Blueshadow;3291915

Lower standards of licensing in farriery in CA?
Well it would really help if the CHRB and racetracks in CA actually enforced the licensing requirement in the first place - which they don’t. There are unlicensed farriers all over the racetracks here. Usually, they are “family” members.

Any unlicensed personnel on the backside can be arrested. That’s a secured area and if you have any first hand knowledge of this I hope you’ll report them to the authorities.

California does have a test. Last I heard there was no reciprocity so anyone coming into California needed to take their test regardless of how many other licenses they held. Problem was that some years ago it was made easy enough that nearly anybody could pass. This is not being held to the old standard of testing as other states. As a result every horse that steps off a plane or truck coming from out there to race on the east coast in most cases needs re-shoeing when it gets here. Their standards are down the toilet.

Other states have eliminated or never had testing. This is a big problem when guys come in to states with licenses from those places and are granted licenses through reciprocity. Passing out licenses like Christmas candy has had disasterous results.

I would encourage all trainers and HBPA members to demand shoer testing in their states and work for uniformity in the laws.

If you’re serious about this or have knowledge of law breaking contact me. This issue gets me going like a junkyard dog.:mad:
George

[Blueshadow]

George,

unlicensed platers are all over the place and always have been - not only in CA I would guess! Not to mention horses trained under the name of a licensed trainer that are actually trained by someone unlicensed. If you are involved with racetracks - you know this happens. And yes - people that are licensed may complain. Getting complaints heard and acted upon is another matter.

I wanted to ask you exactly when you believe licensing requirements in CA were relaxed. To my knowledge, there was one very brief period of relaxation (due to complaints that an insufficient number of platers were being admitted to the CA tracks) about 15 years ago. That was reversed within a year or so. The test here remains, to this day, very tough - and it is not easy to obtain a license here at all.

I would cite a case recently in which a former racehorse (5yo, 5 months off the racetrack after a bad bow) was purchased at a livestock/horse auction for $200. I actually bought him a couple of days later from the horse dealer that purchased him there. I ran his tattoo and figured out the trainer. The trainer, licensed, when questioned by a friend at the racetrack about the horse preferred to say - presumably rather than admitting to himself or the owner of record dumping the horse at a killer sale - that although he was the trainer of record, an exercise rider in his barn was the owner/trainer. Who was responsible for dumping the horse is irrelevant to me, and that’s not my MO anyway; the point is that licensees, among friends, are quite comfortable stating that they break the rules. Personally - I cannot pursue it as it is second hand information. But does it disgust me? Of course. There have been journalists here that HAVE reported these things - and yet nothing serious comes of any of it.

[JHUshoer20]

Was around that same time I would figure. California platers left the JHU and briefly affiliated with the Teamsters. While with them they devised an easier racetrack test to accomodate the persistent whiners who were unable to pass JHU’s test. Is important to note that many racing jurisdictions that no longer have JHU involvement nonetheless kept JHu’s test because it is the best one for testing track shoers.

Eventually CHRB took testing away from the platers and began doing it themselves. Now ain’t that special. Non-horseshoers giving a shoeing test:rolleyes:

Hard can be in the eye of the beholder I’ll agree, but it involves no swaging, fire welding, or demonstration of skill and no experience is required.

Last I heard California hadn’t even made any provision in their licensing law for apprentices. They were trying to work with Sacramento to get that fixed but I don’t know if it ever happened or not.

Some states have a bewildering variety of county and local laws as well. County fairs at some states tend to be very lax. Is this where you’re seeing unlicensed platers? I can’t imagine that at Sant Anita. I know a steward out there who I think would be very interested in this.

As to trainers, well, I did know one up in Boston who was fined and even ruled off for not having a groom properly registered on his badge list. Most places take this stuff pretty seriously although selective enforcement can be a problem. Platers I can and will kick up a stink as thats BS.
George

[Laurierace]

[QUOTE=JHUshoer20;3291757]
Ok, This is the job of track vets to try to minimize. Veterinary malpractice is a big problem I’ll acknowledge that. I also know trainers are sometimes caught between a rock and a hard place when they find themselves in the employ of an owner who just wants a winners circle picture for their office and don’t care how they obtain it. People like this can be hard to work for. At lower levels oftentimes a horse can be wore out when it comes into a barn after being bought, claimed, trainer fired, or whatever.You don’t think that more than 1%? come on now, your not going to blame the jockey? Who then blames the horseshoer? Watching blame go around can be entertaining!:yes::lol:
George[/QUOTE]

Notice I said assholes, not trainers. That’s because owners can be as bad if not worse than the trainers. I think I will forever remain on the verge of going out of business due to my policy of never running sore horses. The first thing I tell a prospective client is I NEVER run sore horses so if that is what you want you might as well look elsewhere. You would be surprised how many conversations end right there. What I am left with is a few loyal owners who sleep well at night knowing their animal is safe and healthy.
Thank God hubby has a “real job” because I know I will never have to decide between putting a horse at risk and putting food on the table.

[FairWeather]

JHU, everybody knows feet aren’t important on the racetrack!