The news last night, here in the LA market, carried a statement from PETA. They were calling for a ‘fix it or ban it.’ The professionals I saw interviewed on the news that witnessed the accident stated that Arms Runner took a mis-step on the crossover. It doesn’t sound like this accident was caused by the yet undefined cause of the accidents. It will be blamed on it anyway.
What are the odds that this rash of breakdowns are an elaborate scheme by a developer to buy the land that the track is located on? The average home price in Arcadia is over a million dollars.
2 Likes
I saw a mentioned on PR’s article late yesterday (I think it was Paulick Report) that implied PETA would go to the governor.
The reality is that horses will continue to have catastrophic breakdowns. Heck, they do that in our most well maintained pastures when they’re out playing.
What, to me, is scary is that PETA has emotion full on on their side. “We need to stop horses from dying when racing”. Admirable goal for sure. Achievable? I don’t think so.
The industry does need to continue to try to make racing as safe as possible. Having PETA using emotion to affect change is just, IMO, a bad idea 
1 Like
Negative 100,000,000. How could a developer influence breakdowns to this extent without anyone being able to trace anything?
1 Like
As Walker Hancock (Claiborne Farm) tweeted yesterday, it takes 600,000 signatures to get a bill on the ballot in CA. PETA currently has 700,000 registered members in that state.
Getting all those 700000 signatures to hold still long enough to agree might be a challenge but I also fully realize that PETA members don’t ‘get it’
The PR article implied that PETA said they would talk to the governor rather than saying they would go for a ballot initiative.
IMO definitely a bit of a scary time in CA if you’re involved in the racing industry and I suspect many other states are looking on. I hope none are being smug enough to think they’re above the problems that SA or racing perhaps in general are having.
Interesting article
They all need to go synthetic. It’s documented over time to be way safer than dirt.
Of all the states, California went all in on synthetics to the tune of about $50 million if you count all of the interations and then putting dirt back. The only place it worked was Golden Gate which is colder, wetter and more humid than Santa Anita.
1 Like
Not to mention the rash of non lethal injuries synthetic leads to. It’s always sad when a horse suffers a fatal breakdown but to me it’s even sadder when they suffer a non fatal breakdown that creates yet another pasture pet at best. We all know there are tons of people lining up to provide the 20 plus years of care they will need. Not. There are no absolutes when dealing with horses which includes synthetic being the solution everywhere for everyone.
7 Likes
If the entire C-J article above is read, it discusses the trade-offs in synthetic vs dirt that Laurierace and Pronzini alluded to.
Maybe synthetic results in fewer fatalities but if it also may result in more injuries and not extending the career of the horse.
A key, IMO. quote
Dr. Mary Scollay, the KHRC’s equine medical director, cautions that mitigating one risk can exacerbate others, and that “if you just address one factor, you have missed the boat.”
If synthetic is the be all and end all then why are there only 5 synthetic tracks left in North America? Arlington Park, Golden Gate Fields, Presque Isle Downs, Turfway Park and Woodbine.
Another quote
“The trainers and the owners are making a legitimate case that they’re getting different kinds of injuries on the synthetic and it’s not extending (horses’) careers, but there are fewer catastrophic injuries. We have to take that seriously as well, even though nobody has funded the study that has proven that.”
Sounds like a worthwhile study but won’t be easy to find a supporting body to perform the study and apply for the grant(s) to pay for it.
1 Like
No, it doesn’t. Horses are much safer on the synthetic. Not sure where you are getting your information from - maybe the same place the Osphos information comes from? Here is an article explaining why Keeneland went from synthetic back to dirt. It actually makes me sick.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/s…he-losers.html
Google around a bit, and please post any article showing that training over synthetic increases the number of injuries vs. training over dirt. I’m happy to read them and change my position on synthetic. @Laurierace, feel free to chime in as well. Not sure how much time you are spending on the backside nowadays, but I am not aware of any reduction in morning non-catastrophic breakdown rate. I do know a few people that summer up at PI, and they like the track. I am well acquainted with several people who are at Fair Hill year round, and they LOVE the Tapeta surface, and will rave about how safe it is. No one I know has actual numbers, but if you have numbers, by all means put them up.
And wow, I can’t imagine preferring a horse to catastrophically break down, significantly endangering the rider and other horses on the track, not to mention the horrificness of it, rather than having the horse sustain a less severe injury that ends it’s career. I have no words.
1 Like
Reading astute professionals’ posts on Facebook, I believe this will permanently change racing in the world. Wagering damages horses who are vehicles to win money, period. Then there’s footing, whipping, the ages and condition of the horses. It isn’t going to go anywhere good.
1 Like
I didn’t say I preferred catastrophic breakdowns. I meant that 100 permanently lame horses are no better than 1 breakdown. A lot of them will be euthananized and some will be sent to slaughter. So they are still dead but if they don’t die right there in front of the cameras they aren’t counted.
7 Likes
Right. Where are you getting your information that this happens more often at tracks with synthetic surfaces than at tracks with dirt surfaces? If that is your argument against synthetic?
1 Like
I’m not Laurierace but how about my personal experience and that of friends and the trainers we’ve employed. I’ve won more than 10 races on synthetics but I’m not a fan. They work OK at Golden Gate because of climate. They were OK at Hollywood because of climate. They were a disaster at Santa Anita and Del Mar because of climate and environmental concerns.
There were some wild injuries that occurred when the synthetics either started to heat up or needed refreshing. Things like double bows, stifle fractures, shoulder injuries, hock injuries, rear end unsoundness of all shapes and sizes which racetrackers of decades experience had never seen before. I took to running mine barefoot to give some slide but my best runner still lost a year of her prime running because her stifles were inflamed.
I was lucky and she came back but I heard of plenty who didn’t. Bone heals but soft tissue tends not to which is what I think Laurierace is getting at. Also the synthetics certainly didn’t stop catastrophics. At best, the amount of breakdowns were less but not completely eliminated. The only thing they helped was the perception game. Instead of horses coming unbuckled in front of an audience, they would gimp back to the barn and either have to be euthanized later or end up having little or no servicable life. Same result and just as heartbreaking but not fodder for PETA. Some people consider that a plus but I think it is pretty cynical myself.
11 Likes
Interesting and informative, thanks for this post.
Question for those of you with professional experience… how do the rates of soft tissue injuries on turf horses compare with those on synthetic? Or is it a poor comparison because of the differences in terms of turf racing itself vs. dirt/synthetic training and racing?
I did not watch anything related to fatality #23… but the circumstances did make me think of the catastrophic breakdown of Crackerjack with Boyd Martin a year or two ago… that was an eventing fatality. But an unusual one, and I believe happened at a spot in a cross country course where there was a transition from turf to dirt briefly. There was A LOT of chatter in the eventing community afterwards about it, because of certain prominent voices on social media speaking up saying that the horse had been pushed too hard, and that the sport needed reform, etc. Discussions quickly took a turn into the realm of these voices making a case for their own particular agendas… and using that public tragedy in order to do so.
Bottom line - it was a unique and tragic breakdown, unusual for eventing (there are serious safety issues… but this particular breakdown was unique), and it happened at a spot where footing transitioned. The situation at Santa Anita is such that all eyes are on it right now, and everyone is immediately connecting this most recent breakdown to all the earlier breakdowns… but it seems like this could be a one-off, unrelated tragedy.
1 Like
I actually did quote from the article how owners and trainers felt about synthetic vs dirt.
I think Pronzini did an excellent job in describing her personal experiences.
Laurierace did stay that breakdowns are not high on anyone’s list but neither are horses left unsound and unridable. They’re also not going to go to a good end for the most part.
Do I like breakdowns? No, I don’t. Don’t like to see them, don’t like knowing they happen. Having said that, at least for the catastrophic breakdown, the end is quick. Maybe perhaps delayed briefly to get the horse off the track with maybe quick diagnostics before the decision is made. A far better end than a life of unsoundness/pain that it sounds like many experienced when having issues over synthetic.
PB, BTW, sometimes you have such a way with words. Bless your heart 
2 Likes
Check the EID. http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=Resources&area=10&story=1105
This information is from the 2018 data released a few weeks ago
The rates associated with each racing surface were as follows:
- On turf surfaces, the rate was 1.20 per 1,000 starts in 2018, compared to 1.36 in 2017.
- On dirt surfaces, the rate was 1.86 per 1,000 starts in 2018, compared to 1.74 in 2017.
- On synthetic surfaces, the rate was 1.23 per 1,000 starts in 2018, compared to 1.10 in 2017.
Synthetic and turf fatal injury rates are about the same.
