I can totally understand the points made by Palm Beach and Pronzini about the impracticality/liability issues involved in vets signing off on some sort of soundness form before each horse races… that seems problematic on a lot of levels. And the idea that breakdowns will ever be zero is impossible…
But what sort of rule/regulation might better address what happened here?
Please excuse my ignorance… I do just want to understand if there is obvious/better rules or reforms that could/should be happening with respect to veterinary sign offs.
Are they currently racing at SA with that measure in place? Because I can’t think of a single vet I know–racetrack or otherwise–who would sign such a form.
Imagine the vet’s liability if a horse gets injured (or heaven forbid, dies) during a race. Horse owner says, “Hey vet, you guaranteed that my horse was fit to race. Now he’s hurt and needs six months of treatment. So you’ll be paying for that, right?”
I’m shocked if SA has been able to implement that. And I’m waiting for the lawsuits to begin.
“However, there have been five deaths since May 17 and four of them have been either shoulder or pelvis injuries, which are usually more difficult to diagnosis without full body scan.”
Make that 29. “On Sunday, Truffalino, a 3-year-old filly trained by Richard Mandella, collapsed after the conclusion of an allowance race, becoming the 29th racing or training fatality since the start of the current meeting Dec. 26.”
LaurieB, a little confused. Which part are you tired of? The horses with catastrophic injuries or how TSG is dealing with the fallout from catastrophic injuries.
Seems like this latest spate is primarily shoulder/pelvis. While the PR has a link that implies pelvic could perhaps be caught sooner, do those of you in the industry agree? Truffalino collapsed after the race. How do you catch the “heart attacks”?
One thing that personally drives me nuts is when the Footnotes say something like
Is it really unknown every time a horse is ‘vanned off’ if the horse is vanned off dead or alive? I get that yeah, sometimes the horse is vanned off to be examined on the backside before a plan is determined but it seems to me that in this filly’s case, it was probably clear she didn’t get on the van under her own power. I realize owner’s expectation of privacy but at the same time, maybe time to be a bit more forthcoming with what happened other than ‘bad step’ and ‘vanned off’ (even if being vanned off means being dragged into the equine ambulance
PS. Because I really don’t know… what would all of you do if you were in charge of racing at SA? Terminate the meet? More testing or scans? Fewer days of racing? I don’t know which is why I’m asking.
I have thought about the question of what I would do and all I can say is I am really glad I don’t have to make that decision. What I would NOT do is deflect the blame onto the horseman or use this spate of deaths to advance my agenda. And I absolutely would not give PETA a seat at the table. So not sure what I would do but sometimes knowing what not to do is a good start.
The irony is that of all the racetracks in California, Belinda owns two of the three that I do not believe can be developed. Golden Gate is on protected wetlands straddling Berkeley and Albany and Santa Anita is zoned specifically as a racetrack–not commercial, not mixed use but as a racetrack. Don’t think development wasn’t thought of thirty years ago when it was owned by a REIT, the owners of which undoubtedly thought if they held it long enough, Arcadia would come to its senses.
But Arcadia is not Inglewood. Arcadia likes racing and doesn’t want development. Santa Anita is a relatively low impact facility that is net revenue positive. It gives the city bragging rights because it is a truly beautiful facility and it can never be rebuilt or duplicated.
Here is the current 25 year land use plan with important parts bolded
"Santa Anita Park – The Santa Anita race track is a key community feature and an important component of Arcadia’s character. The retention of live horse racing at this facility and the ongoing economic vitality of the race track are part of Arcadia’s plan for a strong economic base. Since the advent of off-track wagering facilities and a long-term downturn in the racing industry, attendance at the Santa Anita race track has declined. As a result, it is no longer necessary to reserve both of the race track’s large open parking areas exclusively for race track event parking. The combination of lower attendance and the potential availability of a portion of the race track’s parking areas for other uses have given rise to much community discussion regarding the positives and negatives of permitting new uses within the race track’s parking areas. Arcadia’s long-term vision is to retain live horse racing at the Santa Anita race track, and to preserve the existing grandstand structure. The opportunity also exists to create a development of urban intensity on the race track’s southerly parking lot which responds to the unique attributes of the race track to the north and the shopping mall to the west, and to cultivate this unique combination of regional attractions into a cohesive center. The City’s goal is to ensure that new commercial development within the southerly race track parking area is respectful of Arcadia’s existing community character, one of well-preserved, peaceful, and safe residential neighborhoods.
Because future development within the southerly race track parking lot has the potential for impacting the community, future development must address the following needs:
ƒ Achieving land use compatibility with, and a logical physical relationship to the adjacent mall and residential uses
ƒ Retaining the ability of area roadways to maintain Level of Service D (Level of Service C on local residential streets), as outlined in the Circulation and Infrastructure Element
ƒ Providing sufficient on-site parking so as not to exacerbate existing problems of race track patrons parking offsite
ƒ Maintaining architectural compatibility with the existing race track grandstands
ƒ Preserving important community views of the existing race track grandstands such that the race track grandstands remain recognizable from locations along Huntington Drive
ƒ Providing sufficient on-site security so as not to impact the services of the Arcadia Police Department The purpose of designating the area south of the race track grandstands Commercial is to assist in facilitating free market forces to introduce new, compatible uses with complementary market segments to the existing mall, Downtown, and other commercial areas within the City.
Overall, the Commercial designation of the southerly race track parking lot is intended to assist in achieving the City’s mission and the related economic development and public infrastructure goals that are included in the Mission Statement. By reinforcing the need to establish linkages between new uses and existing ones, and between the race track and mall, the General Plan also seeks to create a synergistic economic relationship between the mall, race track, and new commercial uses in the race track’s southerly parking area. New development within the portion of the race track designated Commercial is to be implemented through a specific plan pursuant to the California Government Code or an equivalent master planning process adopted by the City, and is to be consistent with the following provisions.
Community Context Santa Anita Park is a vital component of the community’s identity, its cultural heritage, and its economic well-being. Further, it is a bonafide regional destination, drawing visitors from throughout Southern California. The race track is one of three major live horse racing venues in Southern California, and possesses a distinct cultural heritage and recreational identity. It consists of the grandstands, track, paddock area, stables, other ancillary buildings, and two large surface parking areas, one to the north and one to the south of the track itself. The southerly surface parking area provides a unique physical opportunity for master planned infill development which builds upon the site’s regional identity and central location. Development within the site’s southerly parking area needs to be carefully planned so as to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to existing and established neighborhoods and commercial areas within Arcadia."
The only thing Belinda can do is sell it --as a racetrack.
The headline-- Santa Anita Rejects CHRB Request To End Meet; 29th Horse Dies Hours Later
And the reality in the body of the article
“On Sunday, Truffalino, a 3-year-old filly trained by Richard Mandella, collapsed after the conclusion of an allowance race, becoming the 29th racing or training fatality since the start of the current meeting Dec. 26. Mandella told the Daily Racing Form’s Brad Free it appeared she died of a heart attack and had no musculoskeletal injuries.”
I know it’s all click bait and people perceive it as “Fake News”, but racing can be clickbaited right out of a sport and try selling those ads then…
Laurierace, I completely agree that sometimes knowing what not to do is a good step in the right direction.
Pronzini, I also rolled my eyes at PR’s headline and article. Truffalino didn’t have a catastrophic breakdown. She suffered the same problem many horses have… some sort of vascular failure (since horses don’t appear to have “heart attacks” as humans have them).
Not sure how ending SA’s meet early would have made a difference as she probably would have been shipped to another track someplace else (GGF) and probably suffered the same outcome (of course, no way to know that for sure).
Unfortunately the leadership of TSG has fallen into a p.r. trap where they’re hoping, after each tragic event, that the announcement of some new measure will placate the critics. First, a lot of these measures, such as having a vet sign some form, are absolutely meaningless in regard to equine safety. Second, the critics will never be placated. Guillermo with PETA is a proven liar and is willing to say and do whatever is necessary to advance the agenda. When critics are establishing the standard of zero deaths, that’s simply unattainable in any walk of life or sport. The time to act was early on when something was obviously wrong with the track, but that time has come and gone. Belinda Stronach, whose competency must be called into question, and her management crew are in engaged in nothing more than a game of tail chasing.
The horsemen absolutely have to shoulder their fair share of the responsibility for the health and welfare of the horse. What many people have not noticed is that trainers are acting in a role similar to a human trainer, who’s job is to physically condition an athlete for competition. Human trainers usually have college and sometimes post grad degrees in a related field, with extensive knowledge of anatomy, physiology, kinesiology, etc. I don’t have the resume of many race horse trainers, but do you know of any who have college level degrees in any related field? I would hazard a guess that the majority do not. Yet they are making decisions wrt the training and racing schedule of the horse. There is a lack of education and understanding of physical conditioning at the level of the trainers and barn staff who are in charge of the health and welfare of the horse.
They should track how often a horse works and how often a horse races and see if there is any correlation with any other factors. Probably some other stuff too, that can be measured from outside the barn.
Someone on this board has horses in training on a synthetic surface and mentioned that synthetics seemed to have a higher incidence of freak injuries such as shoulders, but I can’t remember who it was. Didn’t one of the shoulder injuries happen when the horse was simply galloping?
And I’m very tired of TSG making meaningless PR moves that do nothing to placate anyone. And then patting themselves on the back for their performance. IMHO, they should end the meet now ( a few days early) hire back the good track crew they fired, and make a real effort to ensure that their surfaces are as safe as possible–even if it costs them considerable money to do so. The horses deserve that much, and so do the owners and trainers.
I want TSG to start devoting more time, money, and thought to the quality of their facility than to their stupid public relations stunts.
@LaurieB got it (was just a bit confused so wanted clarification).
I was muddling over this topic last night in my head.
What I wish (and know won’t happen) is for TSG et al to first define the problem that they are trying to solve and then work toward that resolution. For example, tired of horses dying.
There has been such a mish-mash (IMO) of things that TSG et al (racing boards, etc) have suggested, some of which I just don’t get how they will solve the above problem. They might solve a PR problem but solving a PR problem won’t stop the larger problem of doing the best the industry can do to minimize catastrophic breakdowns. Still trying to figure out how changing whip usage will really make a difference other than something that feels good.
Must be frustrating for those of you closer to the industry who would embrace (I suspect) change if it was in the right direction… But real change needs to come from studies and research and those with $$ are more than likely not willing to spend their dollars on this when flashy headlines just mean more dollars added to these same coffers.
PB, do you really think that horsemen really lack education and understanding of equine conditioning??? Maybe a few horsemen yeah, but overall, not sure I’m buying that statement.
It was at best wishful thinking and reality eats wishful thinking for lunch.
Now Del Mar has had its share of problems but the difference is that they have been a lot more proactive about it. Management seems like the adults in the room next to the amateurs running Santa Anita.
Lost in all of this is the remarkable performance of Los Alamitos. In the same time frame, Los Al had 8 horse deaths per the stewards. That’s Los Al which, on the Thoroughbred side of things has $2500 horses running for $4000 purses. Cheap does not always equal cripple.
It goes even deeper than that IMO. Belinda and crew actually caused some of these problems with their ill advised cost cutting measures not to mention the pressure placed on horses and horsemen to be more profitable for them. Then when the crap hit the fan, they didn’t regroup like Del Mar did a couple of years ago but doubled down on finger pointing. Del Mar spent $5 million overhauling the track in 2016. In contrast, Santa Anita implied it was all the horsemen’s fault and tried to ban whips and Lasix. In the meantime, 600 horses have left the state which brought racing days down to three a week.
“Pender, who was ordered by Santa Anita management to vacate his stalls last month, was charged with “knowingly” working a horse at Santa Anita on March 24 after a veterinary examination disclosed an injury, and then entering the horse to race at Golden Gate Fields on April 6.”
I do just want to understand if there is obvious/better rules or reforms that could/should be happening with respect to veterinary sign offs.
