This article was posted in the sport horse forum-interesting!
1 Like
I’ve said on other threads, I’m not a breeder and have no intention of being one. But from an outsider perspective, seeing horses who did not hold up to the demands of racing quickly move into the breeding shed, and producing horses who also do not hold up to the demands of racing seems like a root cause.
I know the financial incentives, in terms of both insurance requirements and potential revenue (particularly for stallions) make it nearly impossible to keep horses racing after an injury. However, how long is that cycle sustainable? Have we crossed a point where ‘perceived’ unsoundness is truly ‘actual’ unsoundness being worsened with subsequent generations? The old timers’ anecdotes certainly suggest that race bred TBs have been bred to be more fragile over time. I wish there was more data to confirm or disprove.
8 Likes
Another interesting statistic–but the records only go back to 2009. I think one plus is having claims be voided where a horse is deemed unsound (or worse yet breaks down), as that use to be all part of the claiming business-unloading unsound horses strategically to the horse’s detriment. I am not sure if all tracks/states have that policy now?
One of the problems I think with coming up with solutions is that some of the solutions cause other problems.
One rule I think may cause some unintended problems: that vet records will be available for governing bodies to view and when there is a breakdown the vet records will be consulted. That sound good. But then—say I have a horse entered in a race and I get suspicious about a knee. I think, let’s take an X-ray of that knee to see what’s going on. Turns out, surprisingly, that horse has a hairline fracture, let’s say, and so I scratch the horse from the race and give it time off or retire.
Now let’s say all my vet records are open to review. I think that there’s probably nothing too bad with that knee, and if I X-ray and it confirms just a little bit of not too bad, like I suspect, I would still run the horse. But my vet‘s advice would be subject to review, and my decision to run the horse would be subject to review, and that would make both of us feel we should scratch a horse we truly think is ok to run, because we can’t say it’s impossible the horse won’t break down. And we’re scared about the prospect of liability, not that we think the horse shouldn’t run. And so…that makes me not want to X-ray the horse. That makes me not want to consult a vet, on anything, because there will be a record of it and if the horse breaks down that X-ray or consult will come back to bite me in the ass. So I might miss things like a surprise hairline fracture.
I don’t train anymore, so I’m not thinking or doing these things, but if I was training, I would be thinking about all the potential implications of even taking an X-ray, whereas otherwise I would have just gotten an X-ray and made an informed decision with the aid of my vet, who would offer their advice without fear of reprisals if they turn out to be wrong or someone later disagrees with their assessment.
7 Likes
Bolding is mine.
This misconception has become one of those hills I’m willing to die on.
This flat out is not what is happening in the majority of instances. Like you say, the pressures to retire early are mostly driven by economics. Even the horses who are “injured” could absolutely rehab and come back to run; it’s just not worth it.
As far as whether or not their unsoundness is “perceived” or “actual” as you say… I agree it would be nice if there were more data on this. But, there have been some truly unsound horses who undoubtedly did not hold up to racing yet ended up siring extremely durable horses. Danzig, Malibu Moon, etc. There have been some horrific breakdowns of horses that for all intents and purposes, should have been unbreakable on paper… but they weren’t.
I certainly believe there could be a degree of genetic unsoundness, but at this point, the entire world is essentially using the same thoroughbred gene pool. Yet we are the only major racing country with such a high rate of breakdowns. To me, that suggests the origins of the problem are less “nature” and more “nurture.”
7 Likes
Agree most good horses are retired as they are worth too much to continue racing.
But I thought it was interesting that Curlin is described to be a 5 generation outcross which I take to mean he has no inbreeding for 5 generations? He certainly is a force for top horses, but not sure whether that will contribute to soundness or not.
Also the latest trainer magazine has an in depth look to training methods that strengthen bone etc. https://trainermagazine.com/ (which I have not finished reading…)
The nuture part is significant (article on that also in recent trainer magazine). You notice big dollar horse buyers tend to make note where a horse was raised as part of the decision-making process in bidding.
@Texarkana, really appreciate your insight and I totally get what you’re saying. Especially this part, very compelling: “…the entire world is essentially using the same thoroughbred gene pool. Yet we are the only major racing country with such a high rate of breakdowns.”
I wish there were clearer answers.
4 Likes
I am curious. Do we know for a fact that we are the country with the highest rate of breakdowns? I’ll admit that I don’t follow racing very closely outside of North America. From a purely analytic standpoint, I would be curious to know what the data looks like.
I do believe there are a high rate of catastrophic injuries/deaths in jump racing. Maybe not the same number of fatal condylar fractures as there are in American dirt racing, but definitely deaths from other types of fatal injuries.
I started to watch the 60 Minutes piece, but had to turn it off. I found it a wayyy too simplified approach on what is likely a multi-faceted problem. The angle felt way too “DRUGS ARE BAD, M’KAY”. I was surprised and disappointed in 60 minutes for presenting what felt like an under researched and over simplified piece.
I am a nobody, but from my perspective, I feel like the answer lies in multiple areas - day to day management practices, training regimens, farrier practices, vet care, medication usage and withdrawal times, preventative imaging, track oversight, breeding practices, track facilities management, etc.
3 Likes
We are highest among large, developed racing countries that report. This is an older article but gives you an idea:
To be fair, we are very different than those other countries in the sense we have a larger base of low level horses. But breakdowns aren’t limited to certain conditions or purse sizes.
I initially didn’t watch the 60 Minutes piece because I thought it would raise my blood pressure too much, especially after hearing they used a lot of breakdown footage. But I caved and watched it, and apart from not needing to see that opening montage of breakdowns, I thought it was fair. They said nothing untrue or hyperbolic. There have been cries from the industry to complain to 60 Minutes, but you can’t complain about the truth. Drain the swamp, guys. (That last comment is directed at the industry). Draining the swamp of drug abuse and misuse won’t prevent all breakdowns but no one can deny it’s a problem.
7 Likes
There are two major differences between U.S racing and racing in other major racing countries.
- We mostly race on dirt.
- In U.S racing horses run nearly flat out from the time the gate opens. It is unusual for race fractions to get faster as the race progresses. This means that horses are tiring by the time they reach the stretch, where they’ll need a big effort. In many/most other countries, horses break from the gate and gallop for the first several furlongs, building up speed to a sprint in the stretch. Fractions normally get faster as the race progresses.
IMO, our problem isn’t nature or nurture. It’s surface and the manner in which dirt racing has evolved.
4 Likes
Maybe this wasn’t as clear as I thought, but I consider selection of surface and racing style to solidly fall into the “nurture” category.
When I say nurture, I mean all the human decisions we make about how we manage our horses throughout their careers. I don’t mean how we raise our horses specifically, but rather any number of big picture practices that in combination could contribute to a horse breaking. It’s multifaceted. Some of the practices are easy to identify, like the cheats who cripple their horses with drugs and wretched practices. But others are too complicated to isolate, or else we wouldn’t be doing them anymore.
2 Likes
My bad. I was equating nurture with pre-race upbringing: ie, raising, training, surgeries, sales prepping, etc. Feel free to disregard my post. 
1 Like
I was just watching clips from a couple of races in Scotland, and that was not the case. They were showing both the times and the miles per hour down the stretch, and the horses were definitely getting slower as they got closer to the wire.
If you go to this Facebook page and scroll down a bit, they posted three stretch runs from November 8, and another three on October 16, and in all of those, the horses were getting slower at the end of the race.
So I guess one of the things I take issue with on the 60 Minutes piece (and I admittedly didn’t watch the whole thing) is that, my understanding (and again I could be wrong) is that aside from the Servis case, most drug violations are not actually use of illegal drugs. They’re mostly medication withdrawal time issues and cross contamination issues. I feel like by saying ‘Racing has a drug problem’ it gives people that are not familiar with racing the perception that it is a dirty game where trainers are injecting horses with God knows what crap they buy in a back alley somewhere. I think what was most eye opening to me was reading I think it was the veterinary report on New York Thunder, where the horse had been injected 3 or 4 times in a really short period of time – in a 3 year old horse (!) That is a huge, huge issue. I think way more of an issue than some with withdrawal time violations. But it’s actually not illegal. If you have a 3 year old that you cannot keep sound to race, that you are injecting it’s joints, that is a major problem.
I love racing. I would hate for it to go away. I watched the entire breeder’s cup card both days, as I do every year, and was reminded of how incredible the sport is. I hope we can clean up racing. But I do think we need to protect what remains of its good image. And I don’t think the 60 Minutes piece helped.
4 Likes
I don’t know if Carleigh Fedorka of the mostly abandoned “A Yankee in Paris” blog is active on these forums, but she wrote a piece many years ago that has lived rent free in my mind ever since:
Defending an Industry that Won’t Defend Itself
60 Minutes didn’t say anything untrue. If racetrackers feel like the story was unbalanced, then for the love of all things holy, get the problem of illegal drugs under control! That should honestly be one of the easiest bad practices to target, yet we have been soft on it basically forever. We pretend to care just enough to keep up appearances, but we all know it’s happening and no one offers any solutions to truly stop it. How are we supposed to fix the really complicated problems if we can’t even come together to fix the obvious ones?
Sorry, I quoted you @floppyammy while going on my own tangent.
6 Likes
I didn’t have a problem with it either with the exception of the breakdowns. I think I would have objected less to the breakdowns if they had shown Navarro or Servis horses but to just cherry pick graphic breakdowns and throw them in was unnecessary. Baffert has his own PR issues but wasn’t part of this whole bust that the story itself was about for example so why show his horse dying? Not to mention how many people saw those few dying horses right off the bat and switched the channel altogether?
2 Likes
Apologies in advance if this is illegible. I couldn’t figure out how to share it without screenshotting.
1 Like
Well Indian Charlie certainly left no doubt as to their feelings.
I honestly kind of agree with a number of the points they made.
1 Like
We don’t know what got left on the cutting room floor, though. I like 60 Minutes and don’t think they went into it with an agenda. But I don’t trust any media outlet to not let at least some bias into the editing process. That’s almost a given.
1 Like
I don’t think anybody can complain about the story when a) they have basically turned a blind eye to Navarro et al. forever, and b) they make absolutely no effort to correct the public perception of racing.
When there were calls from within the industry to speak out and email 60 Minutes, I was fully prepared to do so. Then I watched the segment. Apart from the disturbing and unnecessary breakdown footage, there was nothing to complain about. People can cry it made racing look bad, but you know what? You fools have been doing that on your own for decades. Concerned horsemen, patrons, and fans have been calling for reform for years. We all saw this coming while you just buried your head in the sand.
Now you want to cry about bad press and traitors and terrorists? COME ON.
(All these “you’s” and “we’s” are general and not directed at anyone in particular.)
10 Likes
