[QUOTE=FairWeather;3292039]
JHU, everybody knows feet aren’t important on the racetrack![/QUOTE]
Must be how come broodmares are bought sight unseen and stallion selections are done on a computer without anybody ever bothering to even take a look at these horses right?
George
So many ideas about how to change and hopefully improve the health of racehorses, so much experience and expertise on this list! What comes through to me is that there has to be a culture change – a willingness to put the welfare of the horse ahead of the profits, as Laurierace indicates.
It seems to me that this is at the basis of all human-horse interactions in which the horse comes out the loser: that the human half of the equation has a goal that is too often not supportive of the creature’s welfare. The race industry is certainly not the only horse business in which this is the problem – witness the horse and rider safety summit held for eventing earlier this month.
There, the buzzword was accountability. But as George indicates, it’s too easy to shift accountability – blame – elsewhere.
Perhaps we need to offer a purse for the trainer who loses the fewest horses, or whose horses race the longest? If recognition and profits are the driving forces behind the industry, then recognition and profits perhaps should go to those who put the horse’s welfare higher on their list of goals?
Wow. 4 States out of, what, 36 or so states that have racing. That’s a big movement if you ask me.
Big Brown’s trainer still uses toe grabs up front. Check out the Bloodhorse about his feet being done before the Belmont.
Front toe grabs are much less than they were 10 years ago, but they are not “going away” like everyone on this board seems to think.
Rear toe grabs behind cause stifle problems and increase the chances for chips in the rear ankles. No studies, just personal experience (and by the way, no drop off in performance when we put the queen’s plates on all four’s).
California going to 4mm max is a step in the right direction, but it’s still not enough as this study shows. Low toe grab vs. no grab still results in more catastrophic breakdowns.
[QUOTE=MySparrow;3292177]
Perhaps we need to offer a purse for the trainer who loses the fewest horses, or whose horses race the longest? If recognition and profits are the driving forces behind the industry, then recognition and profits perhaps should go to those who put the horse’s welfare higher on their list of goals?[/QUOTE]
Is a nice thought but I think something else ought to be mentioned and I’m sure Laurie can stand with me on this. For all this talk of profit there really is no profit to speak of. Only about at most 10% of racehorses even make enough money to feed themselves. Most people that get involved with horse racing lose money. I’ll say that again, most people that get involved with horse racing lose money.
At the track near me most trainers charge about $1200 a month. add to that about $200 to $300 for vet and blacksmith bills. Your talking between $1500 and $1600 a month in expenses just to have one in training. (and this cost is rising) Now, out of the trainer’s fee they must cover their payroll as well as buy feed, hay, bedding etc. Is not hard to see that there’s really little or nothing left after everything is paid for. This is why trainers need horses that can win a little something often to carry the rest of the barn.
Try not to judge the whole sport by what you see of the billionaires on top of the heap at the Derby and Breeders Cup. I don’t see anybody getting rich out there.
George
Saw this response on another board…
Not to belittle the seriousness of this, as I do think we have too many breakdowns and I also thnk that the tracks should report breakdowns that happen in training, but I found this reply on another board to be very interesting (and from a source that I respect).
"While I feel there is plenty of room for improvement in the Thoroughbred racing industry, I don’t approve of this type of sensationalistic “reporting”.
While the numbers cited appear to be fairly correct, the “reporter” makes no effort to validify and assign those numbers so that they may be taken in context… in my opinion, this is reporting with a hidden agenda… and the agenda is up to no good.
Anyone who has read my horse racing posts in the past has heard fromme that there is a catastrophic breakdown rate in racing that amounts to about 1/2 of 1%… or 1 catastrophic breakdown per 200 horses… higher than “pleasure disciplines”, but on par with any of the more demanding athletic equine disciplines.
The numbers cited in this article actually back up my previous claims.
Let’s look at them:
40 = the number of racetracks operating on any given day in the USA
x10 = average number of races at each track
400 = average number of races conducted each day inthe USA
x10 = average number of horses in each race
4000 = number of horses competeing each day nationwide
x350 = days in a year (let’s keep the numbers easy to work with)
1,400,000 = number of horses starting in a race in USA each year
Now let’s multiply that number by the 5 years cited in the “news article” to cover from 2003 through 2007.
1,400,000 horses starting annually (includes multiple starts by the same horse)
x5 (years)
7,000,000 = number of horses in USA starting in a race over a span of 5 years.
OK… so unless my calculator is broken, that’s 7 MILLION horses racing over a span of 5 years with 5,000 casualties.
Well, well, well… it appears that MY figures have been too high all this time.
1/2 of 1% would be 35,000 horses lost over 5 years… not 5,000.
If you ask me, the number of horses which die annually doing their job at the racetrack each year isn’t as shocking in context as it seems to be in that “news article”.
Granted, a better number would be ZERO… and racing interests strive towards safer racing at all times.
Being “about the money” isn’t all bad… those people who spend millions or even hundreds of thousands on a single horse and it’s training certainly want to see it alive and winning races… earning money… not crippled or dead.
But my point is that this type of “reporting” is intended to stir things up and make a situation appear to be more horrific than it actually is by presenting a skewed version of the facts.
Be sure you allow your head to rule when reading this type of stuff… and always be aware that the writer who aims to tug heartstrings on people who are uninformed about a subject by offering them only partial information or skewed numbers is attempting to achieve some sort of a goal in his/her agenda.
Another note for those who would like to see horse racing abolished…
Be careful what you wish for!
Just as the “ending slaughter” hullabaloo didn’t have the warm & fuzzy ending so many horse huggers envisioned, neither would the demise of racing.
If you think the companies which develop and manufacture just about EVERYTHING that touches your horse’s life from A to Z are busy spending millions of dollars developing that stuff for your pet horse, you need to rethink.
Look at those studies and research articles closely, and you’ll see that the racing industry is financing just about everything… their goal of course is to get an “edge”, make more money… but the products and technology filter down to the pleasure industry in time.
Without racing, the choices available to the average horse owner will severely diminish as far as Veterinary treatments,health care products, and the research needed to continue developing a better way of life for your own horse.
This is a FACT… "
I also think that breakdowns in horses who break from the gate before the start and then are allowed to reload into the gate and run should be looked at - I think they breakdown often enough that it should be an automatic scratch… JMO
[QUOTE=DickHertz;3292205]
Big Brown’s trainer still uses toe grabs up front. Check out the Bloodhorse about his feet being done before the Belmont.[/QUOTE]
On this one your quite frankly talking BS. I know the guys who shod him and how he was done. Nice try
Front toe grabs are much less than they were 10 years ago, but they are not “going away” like everyone on this board seems to think.
Nice of you to acknowledge that their less than 10 years ago. A few posts ago you didn’t even do that. I have none in my truck and would be hard pressed to find them at my supplier. Nor have I seen them in use in the last 4 years in PA or MA. How many racehorses you get under?
Rear toe grabs behind cause stifle problems and increase the chances for chips in the rear ankles.
Is that right? Funny thing the UC Davis study said no such thing nor did researchers at university of Penn or anywhere else. In fact this claim you’re making well actually you’re the first I’m hearing this from
No studies, just personal experience (and by the way, no drop off in performance when we put the queen’s plates on all four’s).
No studies? I see. We’d certainly never blame it on the drugs you find so beneficial now would we? You’ll find that traction increasing devices of various kind are necessary and benefical on hinds and it is lack of same that wrecks stifles but I digress. Tell you what though, if you’d like to be a real crusader how about working toward a ban on 1/4" bends? Bet you’d see immediate hind leg improvement if you did that.
California going to 4mm max is a step in the right direction, but it’s still not enough as this study shows. Low toe grab vs. no grab still results in more catastrophic breakdowns.
www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/newsimages/toe_grabs.ppt
And if what you say is true then why are breakdowns increasing? I for one welcomed the toe grab ban for that very reason in hopes that the issue would be removed and it could never again be blamed for anything.
Problem as I see it is just how far into the past do they have to go? And why has it not worked?
George
[QUOTE=witherbee;3292214]
Not to belittle the seriousness of this, as I do think we have too many breakdowns and I also thnk that the tracks should report breakdowns that happen in training, but I found this reply on another board to be very interesting (and from a source that I respect).
"While I feel there is plenty of room for improvement in the Thoroughbred racing industry, I don’t approve of this type of sensationalistic “reporting”.
While the numbers cited appear to be fairly correct, the “reporter” makes no effort to validify and assign those numbers so that they may be taken in context… in my opinion, this is reporting with a hidden agenda… and the agenda is up to no good.
Anyone who has read my horse racing posts in the past has heard fromme that there is a catastrophic breakdown rate in racing that amounts to about 1/2 of 1%… or 1 catastrophic breakdown per 200 horses… higher than “pleasure disciplines”, but on par with any of the more demanding athletic equine disciplines.
The numbers cited in this article actually back up my previous claims.
Let’s look at them:
40 = the number of racetracks operating on any given day in the USA
x10 = average number of races at each track
400 = average number of races conducted each day inthe USA
x10 = average number of horses in each race
4000 = number of horses competeing each day nationwide
x350 = days in a year (let’s keep the numbers easy to work with)
1,400,000 = number of horses starting in a race in USA each year
Now let’s multiply that number by the 5 years cited in the “news article” to cover from 2003 through 2007.
1,400,000 horses starting annually (includes multiple starts by the same horse)
x5 (years)
7,000,000 = number of horses in USA starting in a race over a span of 5 years.
OK… so unless my calculator is broken, that’s 7 MILLION horses racing over a span of 5 years with 5,000 casualties.
Well, well, well… it appears that MY figures have been too high all this time.
1/2 of 1% would be 35,000 horses lost over 5 years… not 5,000.
If you ask me, the number of horses which die annually doing their job at the racetrack each year isn’t as shocking in context as it seems to be in that “news article”.
Granted, a better number would be ZERO… and racing interests strive towards safer racing at all times.
Being “about the money” isn’t all bad… those people who spend millions or even hundreds of thousands on a single horse and it’s training certainly want to see it alive and winning races… earning money… not crippled or dead.
But my point is that this type of “reporting” is intended to stir things up and make a situation appear to be more horrific than it actually is by presenting a skewed version of the facts.
Be sure you allow your head to rule when reading this type of stuff… and always be aware that the writer who aims to tug heartstrings on people who are uninformed about a subject by offering them only partial information or skewed numbers is attempting to achieve some sort of a goal in his/her agenda.
Another note for those who would like to see horse racing abolished…
Be careful what you wish for!
Just as the “ending slaughter” hullabaloo didn’t have the warm & fuzzy ending so many horse huggers envisioned, neither would the demise of racing.
If you think the companies which develop and manufacture just about EVERYTHING that touches your horse’s life from A to Z are busy spending millions of dollars developing that stuff for your pet horse, you need to rethink.
Look at those studies and research articles closely, and you’ll see that the racing industry is financing just about everything… their goal of course is to get an “edge”, make more money… but the products and technology filter down to the pleasure industry in time.
Without racing, the choices available to the average horse owner will severely diminish as far as Veterinary treatments,health care products, and the research needed to continue developing a better way of life for your own horse.
This is a FACT… "
I also think that breakdowns in horses who break from the gate before the start and then are allowed to reload into the gate and run should be looked at - I think they breakdown often enough that it should be an automatic scratch… JMO[/QUOTE]
Great post, witherbee. 
As for accountability, Zito is gunning to suspend the vets along with the trainers with Med violations.
There are so many things wrong with your figures, where would one start?
The number of races each year, the numbers of starts each year, and the numbers of starters each year are readily available statistics. You don’t need to use some kind of bizarre Martian mathematics.
FYI for 2006
Number of races — 51,491
Number of starters — 66,118
Number of starts — 420,003
[QUOTE=witherbee;3292214]
Not to belittle the seriousness of this, as I do think we have too many breakdowns and I also thnk that the tracks should report breakdowns that happen in training, but I found this reply on another board to be very interesting (and from a source that I respect).
"While I feel there is plenty of room for improvement in the Thoroughbred racing industry, I don’t approve of this type of sensationalistic “reporting”.
While the numbers cited appear to be fairly correct, the “reporter” makes no effort to validify and assign those numbers so that they may be taken in context… in my opinion, this is reporting with a hidden agenda… and the agenda is up to no good.
Anyone who has read my horse racing posts in the past has heard fromme that there is a catastrophic breakdown rate in racing that amounts to about 1/2 of 1%… or 1 catastrophic breakdown per 200 horses… higher than “pleasure disciplines”, but on par with any of the more demanding athletic equine disciplines.
The numbers cited in this article actually back up my previous claims.
Let’s look at them:
40 = the number of racetracks operating on any given day in the USA
x10 = average number of races at each track
400 = average number of races conducted each day inthe USA
x10 = average number of horses in each race
4000 = number of horses competeing each day nationwide
x350 = days in a year (let’s keep the numbers easy to work with)
1,400,000 = number of horses starting in a race in USA each year
Now let’s multiply that number by the 5 years cited in the “news article” to cover from 2003 through 2007.
1,400,000 horses starting annually (includes multiple starts by the same horse)
x5 (years)
7,000,000 = number of horses in USA starting in a race over a span of 5 years.
OK… so unless my calculator is broken, that’s 7 MILLION horses racing over a span of 5 years with 5,000 casualties.
Well, well, well… it appears that MY figures have been too high all this time.
1/2 of 1% would be 35,000 horses lost over 5 years… not 5,000.
If you ask me, the number of horses which die annually doing their job at the racetrack each year isn’t as shocking in context as it seems to be in that “news article”.
Granted, a better number would be ZERO… and racing interests strive towards safer racing at all times.
Being “about the money” isn’t all bad… those people who spend millions or even hundreds of thousands on a single horse and it’s training certainly want to see it alive and winning races… earning money… not crippled or dead.
But my point is that this type of “reporting” is intended to stir things up and make a situation appear to be more horrific than it actually is by presenting a skewed version of the facts.
Be sure you allow your head to rule when reading this type of stuff… and always be aware that the writer who aims to tug heartstrings on people who are uninformed about a subject by offering them only partial information or skewed numbers is attempting to achieve some sort of a goal in his/her agenda.
Another note for those who would like to see horse racing abolished…
Be careful what you wish for!
Just as the “ending slaughter” hullabaloo didn’t have the warm & fuzzy ending so many horse huggers envisioned, neither would the demise of racing.
If you think the companies which develop and manufacture just about EVERYTHING that touches your horse’s life from A to Z are busy spending millions of dollars developing that stuff for your pet horse, you need to rethink.
Look at those studies and research articles closely, and you’ll see that the racing industry is financing just about everything… their goal of course is to get an “edge”, make more money… but the products and technology filter down to the pleasure industry in time.
Without racing, the choices available to the average horse owner will severely diminish as far as Veterinary treatments,health care products, and the research needed to continue developing a better way of life for your own horse.
This is a FACT… "
I also think that breakdowns in horses who break from the gate before the start and then are allowed to reload into the gate and run should be looked at - I think they breakdown often enough that it should be an automatic scratch… JMO[/QUOTE]
Excellent points Witherbee, clearly there is an agenda yes. And like you I don’t believe it good nor do I ever think anything on the up and up from main stream media. It is my hope that if some light can be shone on the cockroaches perhaps the sport can be cleaned of them. That would be a good thing. If horses could run drug free and an end could come to bone scraping, pin firing, and other forms of veterinary malpractice that would be a good thing as well.
Being the pessimist that I am I don’t think any of that will happen and that this will just blow over. We can hope and dream though. Thats what the horse business is all about.
George
What was so great about it? the assault on logic and reasoned mathematical approach? That has to be the scariest use of numbers I have ever seen.
1,400,000 horses race every year in the US? There aren’t that many TBs alive fer godssakes.
Eight Belles, Nashobas Bay, Storm MarcoPolo
RE : "99% is from assholes running a dead sore horse hoping he will make it around one last time. The rest falls into the “shit happens” category.
All three of these Thoroughbred Racehorses, Eight Belles, Nashobas Bay, and Storm Marcopolo (ARG) died recently. We saw Eight Belles on TV. Nashobas Bay, a multiple GI winner kicked the back of her stall at Santa Anita and broke her rear leg. Storm Marcopolo, Champion Miler in Argentina was undergoing a MRI to check an ankle when he had a bad reaction to the anesthesia and died. Those are definately in the “Shit happens” column.
We see these incredibly powerfull animals, and do not realize just how fragile they are. Horse were extinct in the Americas when Europeans arrived for a reason. When you have horses, they die. When you push them physically they die more often. The key is to keep those death ratios as close as possible to each other. (idle horse deaths to competing horse deaths).
Given that, I agree with the poster who says that shoeing quality levels at some tracks are less than they should be. As an endurance rider, I appreciate the difference good shoeing can do versus the harm from bad shoeing.
I also have seen horse that would have been pulled at the start of an endurance ride for lameness competing at the race track. Those would fall under the 99% assholes area.
Paul N. Sidio
Spokane MO
It’s Nashoba’s Key, not Nashoba Bay. RIP
Anyway, your point is valid. Between what we’ve taken in from other outfits and talking to other “real” horseman at our training farm, there are a lot of bad farriers. No heel and long toes. Then throw a toe grab on (but to offset that, let’s put blocked heels on). Yikes ! If trainers would just have faith in THEMSELVES instead of everything else, they’d be better off !!!
alot of this is true
[QUOTE=Laurierace;3291702]
99% is from assholes running a dead sore horse hoping he will make it around one last time. The rest falls into the “shit happens” category.[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of this is true, but I also think the horses should be bred for bone, and not for speed.
and did you all see the post by the OP wondering what happened to a horse she had been following in Wash. state, from Calif, vanned off the track and destroyed last week?
I don’t expect all the horses to never have problems. but can’t racing be more like our human athletes, hopefully not the steroid ones, who train, and train well, and when they are injured, they don’t race? Our human athlete training for track and field is not run with kids, but with college and older athletes. If our 6 and 7 yr old kids were run like that, they’d break down also. This is not worded well! Let the horses mature, gradually run them for distance, and then for speed, and don’t use them up and throw them away. And breed for good bone, not for the light little frail bones that break like Barbaro’s leg.
[QUOTE=cloudyandcallie;3292911]
I think a lot of this is true, but I also think the horses should be bred for bone, and not for speed.
and did you all see the post by the OP wondering what happened to a horse she had been following in Wash. state, from Calif, vanned off the track and destroyed last week?
I don’t expect all the horses to never have problems. but can’t racing be more like our human athletes, hopefully not the steroid ones, who train, and train well, and when they are injured, they don’t race? Our human athlete training for track and field is not run with kids, but with college and older athletes. If our 6 and 7 yr old kids were run like that, they’d break down also. This is not worded well! Let the horses mature, gradually run them for distance, and then for speed, and don’t use them up and throw them away. And breed for good bone, not for the light little frail bones that break like Barbaro’s leg.[/QUOTE]
The horse that the OP was following who broke down and was destroyed obviously falls into the 99% category. They were hoping he would make it all the way around one more time, but he did not. Exactly what I am talking about.
As far as track and field not being ran with children but with adults. I guarantee you there isn’t a single athlete at that level that laid around his entire life playing video games and then one day decided to take up competitive running. If they didn’t have the foundation as children, they wouldn’t stand a chance as an adult. Same goes with horses. Pull an unbroke 5 year old out of a field, break him and then send him to the track. Not a chance he will make it.
—"I think a lot of this is true, but I also think the horses should be bred for bone, and not for speed. "—
That doesn’t make sense if you are breeding race horses.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;3292936]
As far as track and field not being ran with children but with adults. I guarantee you there isn’t a single athlete at that level that laid around his entire life playing video games and then one day decided to take up competitive running. If they didn’t have the foundation as children, they wouldn’t stand a chance as an adult. Same goes with horses. Pull an unbroke 5 year old out of a field, break him and then send him to the track. Not a chance he will make it.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely right:yes:
Do a google search on a thing called Wolff’s Law.
Older horses starting later are much more prone to injury. Is a proven fact.
George
[QUOTE=Bluey;3292938]
—"I think a lot of this is true, but I also think the horses should be bred for bone, and not for speed. "—
That doesn’t make sense if you are breeding race horses.;)[/QUOTE]
Those horses don’t bring $500k at Keeneland in September…unfortunately.
Martian Math lol! I copied that from another BB - I think the points are valid, but am happy to have anyone correct the math. I knew the numbers were high, but , if you take the 420,003 starts for 2006 and multiply that times the 5 years that the study was done, you get 2,100,0015 starts with 5000 catastrophic injuries and it doesn’t sound like we’re losing horses every race like some are intimating…
As whenever math and statistics are introduced people bend it in all sorts of directions 
Someone else cited the more logic presentation featured in the New York Times
The R.C.I., a nonprofit trade association, concluded that over that five-year period there were 2,427,561 starters, and the number of deaths amounted to 0.125 percent
While any breakdown is terrible the suggestion that racing is a constant life of breakdown day after day after day after day is not terribly accurate unless you are looking across the board of what happens in the context of the horses coast to coast and regardless of being on the track for a race or not.
The New York State Racing and Wagering Board broke down the 637 horse deaths on its harness and thoroughbred tracks over the five-year period: 388 occurred on the track, 60 occurred in training and 189 were nonracing-related deaths that occurred in the backstretch.
“The 388 deaths that occurred while racing are out of a total of 521,703 starters (0.07 percent),” it reported.
It is relatively so small that if you were to round the numbers to the nearest 1% then it would be in NYS a 0% death rate from running.
Look at the numbers that exists (not numbers pulled out of the air) for New York State racing - from Finger Lakes to Saratoga, Yonkers Raceway to Montecello, and Belmont to Tioga Downs plus all points in between - you had a mortality rate on the backstretch at almost 50% of the those on the track in an actual race. That is an amazing thing!
(Plus I don’t believe that NYS has any quarter horse racing at all; Tioga in the 1970’s for example was a QH track)
Further information to keep in mind the stat that the AP is working with and the NYTimes is based upon the released data of the Assoc. of Racing Commissioners International - the deaths of over 3k for the five year period included QHs, Standardbreds and TBs. Don’t just look at these breakdowns and heap it on the National Thoroughbred Racing Association as it is a far different organization then the Quarterhorse racing bodies.
