Probably not a bad thing to include in the analysis (if the mythical ‘they’ isn’t already doing that).
My point was that presumably experienced, trained individuals are performing necropsies, have possible areas to examine more closely than say, a back yard horse with a fracture, and can do their best to determine the cause of the breakdown given they often don’t have perhaps the real state of the leg before the breakdown happened.
In any case, I am presuming that these “experienced, knowledgeable” people should know what to look for, not legislators that aren’t that familiar with race horses, their training regime and go with what is ‘popular’ and perhaps fund or voter influenced (my personal opinion).
Here’s another article from the LATimes. It is about a bill that would expand the authority of the CA Racing Board to suspend racing or change dates. The bill has passed the State Senate and is expected to be voted on by the Assembly by July 12th. The Governor is supporting the bill:
WheresMyWhite: The editorial I posted was by the Times/ Editorial Board. They usually consult with their reporters that cover the issue area of the opinion. It’s $11.96/mo for Internet access if you want to stay abreast of what’s happening with Santa Anita. I believe they said that there were only 12 races left in the season. The TV news here is showing the protestors outside of SA calling for an end to racing there.
How can people continue to back Jerry Hollendorfer. Lets be realistic here. He has been around a long time, he comes across as an admirable man. He has THREE on the death list this season. Kochees was claimed by Hollendorfer from Jonathan Wong in November 2018. At first, Jerry was entering him about ever4 weeks until this recent stretch where the horse raced 4/19, 5/5, and 5/25. Kochees worked 5 f in 1:03 on 4/7, 4f in 51 on 4/28, 4f in 48.8 on 5/13, and 4f in 48.4 on 5/21 in between those listed races.
Prior to this recent streak, Hollendorfer and connections were racing him 1x a month. The horse had a length time off in 2017 where he did not race between 1/14 and 10/28. He also did not race between 5/24/2015 and 4/17/2016 (1 year off). Assuming do to recovery from a potential injury.
I understand some horses need more frequent races but this horse ran consistently for years 1x a month. Obviously had an injury or two along the way. Why hammer on him at 9 years old all of a sudden? It’s not like he was winning.
I 100% agree that horse deaths happen. I am not denying that. I am happy that Hollendorfer and connections at least tried to save the horse noted above but for lack of better response: w.t.f.
microfractures or not; look at the above and tell me there is something not wrong? And this is not something new for Santa Anita. Look at the records from last year as well, Why isn’t Hollendorfer himself up in arms with the track; he has walked back to the barn to 3 empty stalls this season. Why is anyone putting horses on that track everyday
There wasn’t, IMO, another shoulder. The horse that Cammie posted about, Derby River, is the same ‘shoulder’ injury, not another one.
Unless perhaps the ‘another’ was Commander Coil on May 17. Not sure if that is recent or not.
Of the 27, one was a ‘heart attack’ while there were a few (didn’t count) with pelvis and shoulder issues. Those are unusual and would be hard to detect and probably not in a part of the body more commonly examined pre-race.
CandC, can you validate the 6 more that you said have been euthanized over what is in the media?
A late PS -
I reviewed all the Stewards Minutes for Santa Anita for the duration of this meet. The current week is not yet published so perhaps the discrepancy.
I counted (I think correctly ) a total of 31 listed fatalities. AFAIK, any horse euthanized as a result of racing or training, regardless of when or where, is reported to the CHRB for reporting purposed.
Actually, I think as I looked at the steward’s minutes, there was at least one fatality listed during the break. I’d have to go back again and double check.
Ten weeks after introducing significant reforms in California aimed at reducing racing fatalities and improving the safety and welfare of horses and riders, The Stronach Group is now requiring all entries at Santa Anita to be accompanied by a pre-race exam form, signed by a trainer’s veterinarian and stating that a horse has no known issues that would preclude it from racing.
The PET scan is a good idea but focused only on the fetlock joint. Some of the fatalities listed above are things like shoulders and pelvis which are notoriously hard bones to x-ray or scan well.
But, this additional form from the trainer’s vet seems to me to be a useful step. Those closer to the industry, your thoughts?
I think any vet who would sign this needs to talk to their lawyer first.
This form as I understand it presupposes that a horse has one vet and that the vet has conducted a head to toe PPE type physical examination. It also impliedly assumes that breakdowns are because of one big undisclosed issue.
Confidentality can be waived by the holder of the privilege which is generally understood to be the owner so that isn’t the issue. But the backstretch doesn’t work like someone’s private barn. Vets are roaming around and a trainer sometimes says “You want to take a look at this one” and the owner doesn’t get billed for the barn call or the consultation which is considered a courtesy but for the treatment. Yeah trainers generally have go to vets but that doesn’t mean that vet is the only one who treats that horse. When I had two horses at Santa Anita, I can recall getting bills from at least three different vets and they were both with the same trainer. Sometimes the trainer just grabs the vet he or she knows is around that day. Sometimes a horse needs an emergency shot of banamine or something and trainers can’t have needles.
Also lost in this discussion is that horses are prey animals and it is not in their best interest in an evolutionary scheme of things to announce that they are hurt. Things get subtle and I don’t know how many times when I boarded at a large public stable that I witnessed recreational riders blissfully unaware that their mounts were clinically unsound. Professional horsemen don’t have that excuse but does that little hitch in the horse’s step at the beginning of a workout mean he is a little stiff on that side from overuse or is it the portender of something more serious? He warmed out of it and there does not seem to be any heat. He looks fine now and the vet you asked to look at him didn’t see anything. Do you stop everything and run a battery of tests (expensive tests) on a horse which isn’t showing clinical lameness? A trainer better hope they find something because otherwise how do you justify it to the client? And if the vet isn’t called in, how does the vet know?
So the vet signs that form certifying that horse is OK and the horse has a catastrophic. I can see blowback on that vet. What if that jockey is badly hurt? Fraud and misrepresentation might get around assumption of the risk.
But what did the vet really know when that form was signed?
These, yes, I did think of. Made some sense to me to have a non-track vet look over the horse (ie, one that isn’t the official state vet) but yeah, I though a bit of going out on a limb to sign in the event that something did happen during a race. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I get where “everyone”, both inside and outside the industry, would like to see the sport gets safer but it will never be completely “safe”. Bad stuff will continue to happen. How to know where to draw the line on ‘acceptable’ vs not acceptable.
That’s the issue isn’t it? And that is the problem with “Deathwatch 2019”-- it had a purpose three months ago when they were coming one after another. I’m pretty confident that we have normalized but they are still being counted by people who won’t accept anything other than zero and may not even know a chestnut from a bay.
The form needs to be submitted with the entry, which is usually several days before the race.
Most big barns employ a veterinarian practice that has multiple vets, and one of those vets stops in the barn every day to check with the trainer/assistant/foreman, or calls them first thing in the morning to see what work needs to be done that day. There are a few trainers who will jog every horse in the barn for the vet every so often, but that is not routine. Usually it’s only the horses that the trainer thinks may have a problem that gets examined by the vet.
The smaller trainers usually have to call the vet to come into the barn if they need something. Sometimes the vets will check in with their smaller clients, but it depends on how busy they are that particular day.
Most practices have a vet stay all day at the races when their clients have horses running in case they are needed.
Like noted above, the vets usually do not charge for an evaluations, just for any treatment they may feel is necessary.
The problem Stronach is trying to address is that sometimes the trainers never have a vet look at a horse, and it breaks down. The trainer believes the horse to be sound, and the horse gave no indication to the trainer or staff that there was anything seriously wrong with it, so they never needed the vet to look at it. Or maybe the vet did look at the horse, but that was months ago, and the vet did not feel the horse needed treatment, so there is no record of the evaluation (no treatment, no bill to the owner, no paperwork).
So Stronach wants the treating vet to fill out the form prior to entry, which is several days before the race. The horse will continue to train, and the state vet will look at the horse the day of the race and clear it to race.
Another problem is that vets will tell a trainer that the horse is not sound enough to run, and the trainer will enter the horse anyway.
) a total of 31 listed fatalities. AFAIK, any horse euthanized as a result of racing or training, regardless of when or where, is reported to the CHRB for reporting purposed.