Racing vs training injuries

[Gestalt]

Interesting article.
https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/exercise-related-fatalities-why-theyre-rise-and-whats-being-done-about-it/

I wonder what could cause the difference in the racing fractures that seem to be mainly on the lower leg and the training injuries that happen more to the upper leg. I’ve never seen this info before.

As an aside, it’s well known in the endurance riders world that you must train sometimes on hard surfaces. The theory (fact?) is that it strengthens the bones. Of course this isn’t speed work, but if road work helps endurance horses, is it possible a different type of hard surface could be used for race horses? I’m thinking hand walking several times a week or …? Am I out in left field?

And my ramblings don’t address the different fracture locations, but I’m just throwing thoughts around to try to understand what happens and why.

[Palm_Beach]

@Gestalt

Interesting article.
https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/exercise-related-fatalities-why-theyre-rise-and-whats-being-done-about-it/

I wonder what could cause the difference in the racing fractures that seem to be mainly on the lower leg and the training injuries that happen more to the upper leg. I’ve never seen this info before.

I did not see where it said training injuries happen more to the upper leg. Are you referring to this - “For example, in Kentucky, which has been collecting exercise-related fatality data since 2012, humeral fractures occur “almost exclusively” in training, said Laura Kennedy, a veterinary pathologist at the University of Kentucky. “And the fracture is generally going to occur when the horse is coming off a lay-off,” she added.” I would only conclude from that statement that if there was a problem with the humerus, it will show up before the horse gets fit enough to actually race.

The article repeatedly cites a lack of information, so have a few grains of salt ready to take with some of the statements. Because race related fatalities are decreasing, of course the percentage of training fatalities increases, since you are only using two figures. I wish the article would do more citing so the original data could be read instead of just the article’s interpretation of the data.

"This notion, of course, encompasses training-related fatality data, because emerging research appears to debunk a number of pre-conceived notions regarding the best way to train racehorses and prevent injuries.

An axiom among many horsemen is that longer steadier works are preferable to shorter, sharper ones. But Sue Stover of UC Davis points out that shorter bouts of high-speed exercise — perhaps performed more frequently than would typically be the case, but over less total distance — might ultimately be better for racehorses’ bones."

^^^Wish there were links or citations to support the two above paragraphs. Training has moved from long gallops and works to training lighter and working shorter distances. Once they are fit, you don’t need to lay them on the fence.

[Where_sMyWhite]

I would tend to agree with PB. It’s nice to throw numbers around but it would also be nice to have the base documents from which these numbers were derived.

IMO, you can prove almost anything you want from statistics depending on how they are analyzed.

While I would agree with this comment

One area in which the broader consensus is unequivocal, however, is in the existence of pre-existing conditions prior to a catastrophic injury occurring, and the pouring of cold water on the notion of horses simply taking a ‘bad step’.

How the heck would you really be able to “pre-identify” existing conditions prior to a potential breakdown? When a horse does “take a bad step”, how could you, after the fact, identify which part of the injury was pre-existent to the breakdown and which part of the injury was the direct cause of the breakdown? Horses don’t lend themselves to easy identification of small musculo-skeletal lesions which might cause a breakdown due to nature of their body and some of the reasonably inaccessible bones (inaccessible in terms of being able to get good rads).

I can see if more extensive and expensive pre-race diagnostics are done looking for small lesions that might cause problems, that a percentage of horses will be kicked out of racing “early” rather than pay for the diagnostics. Is that a good thing? I don’t know.

What also would be the impact of benching every horse that shows pre-race “lesions” when there is still not enough information, IMO (or at least based on this article) to really know which lesions might actually lead to a breakdown vs those that won’t.

I would agree that more extensive reporting from tracks on both race-day and race-day+72 hours as well as training injuries through 72 hours after, including off-site transport to equine hospital/clinic should be done. Anything that a state mandates should be done with respect to race-day (including necropsy policy) should be carried through to training injuries.

I did think the information on a potential link between training breakdowns and horses arriving from CA tracks was interesting (mostly because Turf Paradise is my closest track).

I know it’s hard when you have tracks located in different states and there is inconsistency in reporting across those states but anything that can be done to collect as much data as possible would be a huge step. Once data is collected, it does need to be analyzed. I also agree with this

But all this data is meaningless if left unanalyzed.

The data needs to be collected and then, yes, analyzed.

IMO, then any “official” reports based on the collected data should be made available to the public.