One has nothing to do with the other.
Late to the topic but only to add that racehorses can die very public deaths and that makes all the difference.
For sure horses in different disciplines are started at 2/3 and framing impacts their necks , backs, hocks and lower front legs from concussion. The difference is that they gradually disappear when maladies at a young age quietly remove them from competition.
All imo and not tryin to argue that tracks need to do something in these situations
Just always have been annoyed at people who show and some rescues who promote any current HSUS type bandwagon and splash pictures of wrecks forwarded in what seems a very agenda type fashion.
Rescues should try presenting pics of failed rescues orgs that starved animals and realize that reality when promoting themselves (it happens enough to be addressed) and similar with showing. Shows can over do the meds, pain killers, tranq type, muscle relaxants, ulcer guards, and tendon treatments (along with what causes those needs in the first place.)
That’s a very concrete statement. Can you describe the other factors you believe are contributing?
Racing is the only discipline regulated by states and the only industry to do such comprehensive tracking of horses, results and statistics, as well as drug testing. No other discipline is as closely regulated or scrutinized. Who knows what goes on behind closed, and not so closed, doors in barns of other disciplines. The difference is that the other disciplines do not track, monitor and document as well as racing.
The reason the states get so involved is to protect the betting public from fraud and keep them coming to the tracks and off track betting parlors., not for altruistic reasons. It’s a very lucrative industry for those folks and they don’t want it tarnished to the point it reduces the take.
nevertheless, US racing is still not favorably comparing to international standards for medicating. This is not helping them in the PR game, which they are not exactly winning. So it doesn’t really matter what sport X is doing from a public perception department, being the best of the worst still isn’t #winning in a PR race.
Honestly, racing has a great story to tell and so many of the posts on this thread tell it. But having humpty bjillion different racing jurisdiction rules, hit or miss transparency rules and such a profoundly different set of medication rules from the rest of the world? It was never very defensible and now that a spotlight is on it, that is becoming obvious to even the most casual fan.
Regardless of why it exists, it still is regulated in a manner that most disciplines & showing avoid, and I don’t believe selling, buying, leasing has much anything to do with altruism.
FWIW, often the story that hits the public first and gets “locked in” is right even when it isn’t. Contracting something, even if the contradiction can be proven with fact over hyperbole, that first impact is hard to change.
Yes, there is no such thing as an altruistic politician!
The only difference is Lasix. Everything else is the same. And you do know that the rest of the world uses Lasix for training, just not racing, right?
Of course I do, however you do know that which goes on behind closed doors is (not yet) part of the public perception problem, right?
And there’s the issue of track surfaces which vary greatly and may not have standardized maintenance protocols. But maybe that thought belongs in a different thread.
Maybe to the public it doesn’t but it does. Much of the rest of the world races primarily on turf… we don’t. When there is not turf, it’s often as not synthetic. Yes, some to race over dirt. Yes, some have tracks with both but a bit dicey, IMO, to compare injury/mortality rates without taking surface into consideration. Even comparing our turf with turf across the pond isn’t the same.
Which needs to be addressed by US racing, as that is one of the most important factors in horse safety.
Where’sMyWhite and Palm Beach, thanks for your comments. I have been hearing for a bit from some very knowledgeable and thoughtful friends (who don’t post here and thus will be nameless) that track maintenance is a huge problem and has contributed significantly to breakdowns. It ain’t Lasix, is their message. Neither is it starting horses (correctly) at 2. But that’s pretty much where the many knowledgeable and thoughtful people on this BB are too.
I agree that lasix isn’t a significant factor, but not aligning with international standards is a stupid hill to die on.
Never said or inferred other disciplines were altruistic. Just the only reason race horses get some protection is to protect the vast millions legally bet on it.
What’s the same about international racing: the use of lasix for training, the use of some therapeutic medications for training, the age of horses beginning their racing careers.
What’s different about international racing: just about everything else.
Of course it varies country to country. But the affluent countries with well-developed racing programs? Their husbandry and conditioning practices vary considerably from our own. For example, we are one of the few developed countries where horses live on-site where they primarily race, which changes training and care practices significantly.