National and KY-based poll commissioned by The Jockey Club

[Where_sMyWhite]

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/233598/poll-documents-publics-concern-about-horse-fatalities

Poll commissioned by The Jockey Club. The results don’t surprise me.

According to a new, national and Kentucky-based poll commissioned by The Jockey Club, horse fatalities are the single most important factor facing the horse racing industry with nearly seven in 10 likely voters (69 percent) saying that it is a “very important” issue. The misuse of drugs was almost equally significant with 65 percent saying it was “very important.” Integrity and corruption also scored highly at 63 percent.

Many support the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2019 including the involvement of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

I am curious

a) how do the people here who are active participants in the TB industry (or who have been) feel about things like the HIA and involvement with USADA?

b) there is continued reference to ‘international standards’. What are these ‘international standards’ other than many other countries don’t allow at least race day meds (I don’t know for many countries are no meds allowed at all or just race day)?

In part, one of the stats got me curious…

93 percent of likely voters said they would be “much more” or “somewhat more” favorable to horse racing if the U.S. adopted international standards, which are proved to reduce equine fatalities and injuries.

Any thoughts on what ‘international standards’ are *proven" to reduce equine fatalities and injuries.

I totally get that many of these questions were posed of voters who may or may not be savvy with respect to both horses as well as horse racing. I also realize that how a survey question is posed can greatly influence the answer. This survey, as I would expect, appears to be a ‘multiple choice’ type survey based on how the different stats are summarized.

[DarkBayUnicorn]

@Where'sMyWhite

I totally get that many of these questions were posed of voters who may or may not be savvy with respect to both horses as well as horse racing. I also realize that how a survey question is posed can greatly influence the answer. This survey, as I would expect, appears to be a ‘multiple choice’ type survey based on how the different stats are summarized.

I just peeked at the methodology. n=700 “likely voters” for national and n=500 “likely voters” for the Kentucky sample. That’s a very small sample size to try to extrapolate national sentiment. Additionally, the sample skews youngish (44% 18-49) and caucasian (69%).

The report claims a +/- 3.7% for the national sample, +/- 4.38% for the national sample and 95% overall confidence. Pretty standard from my understanding.

The study does break racing fans v non-racing fans for the KY sample, but not the national. I think this could have significant weight on responses to some rather leading questions, like the “international standards” one you raised. To the non-racing fan, it would seem logical that US racing should meet (or set!) such standards. We know they don’t even really exist, right? Case in point, those surveyed who identified as racing FANS, typically felt more strongly than those who identified as working in the industry (across issues, and applicable only to KY sample).

Interestlingly, “Horse injuries / deaths/ Santa Anita” scored equivalent 2% mentions on open-ended (unprompted) associations in KY, and nationally, with “Inhumane / abuse” scoring 3% and 5% respectively across the samples. The top unprompted association was “Specific races”.

Full report is here: http://jockeyclub.com/pdfs/horse_racing_poll.pdf

[Where_sMyWhite]

@DarkBayUnicorn

Thanks for the pointer to the PDF (didn’t even think to look). I’m not a statistician per se to know how the variances weigh in (stats was long enough ago that I don’t remember that but do know how the questions are posed does make a difference).

I’ll have to look at the full report and see if I answers any of my questions… like what exactly are those ‘international standards’ that are proven to reduce equine fatalities and injuries given that racing, particularly across the pond, is just so different with respect to both racing training as well as race surface (primarily softer, longer turf vs primarily dirt).

[Palm_Beach]

I don’t get why people are so hung up on race day Lasix. It’s used for training regularly “across the pond” as are other drugs. And then they cross their fingers and hope the horse doesn’t bleed bad on race day.

[merrygoround]

@Palm Beach-Because it is considered a performance enhancing drug. Not every horse getting it is a bleeder.

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/commentary-the-performance-enhancing-effects-of-lasix/

[Rackonteur]

If these races were run on grass like so many other classic races in the western world, I wonder if that surface would have made any difference at all to the Derby’s results.

Although still, having seen Luis’s lawyer’s video, I think War of Will might have been running just the same regardless of the surface he was running on.

[Pronzini]

@merrygoround

@Palm Beach-Because it is considered a performance enhancing drug. Not every horse getting it is a bleeder.

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/commentary-the-performance-enhancing-effects-of-lasix/

We can go back to the good ol’ days–let’s just dehydrate them before the race.

[Palm_Beach]

@merrygoround

@Palm Beach-Because it is considered a performance enhancing drug. Not every horse getting it is a bleeder.

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/r…ects-of-lasix/

If every horse gets it, it’s a level playing field. So explain why people are hung up on a drug that is proven to be safe and effective, and that is equally available to every horse, and is recommended by the AAEP. The “performance enhancing” effects last only as long as it takes to get the horse to a water bucket.