@Tyrus’ Mom - did your friend explain how the saboteurs managed to cause catastrophic shoulder injuries and heart attacks? Or actually any injury? Follow the theory to a logical conclusion.
I had a feeling the number of fatalities this year wasn’t really that big of an anomaly but am dumbfounded by the numbers quotes in this article. In over 20 years of training race horses I can only recall a handful of fatalities in the morning. I know their horse population is bigger than places I have been stabled but not that much bigger to explain these numbers. 42 is mind blowing.
https://ktla.com/2019/06/11/santa-anita-horse-death-toll-nowhere-near-tracks-deadliest-year/
A couple of things–horses, and especially green horses, should be at the track they will race at for some period of time. You want them walking over to their debut and not shipping in. A good trainer wants to minimize the variables as much as possible. It’s hard enough on babies to go to the walking ring, parade, load into a gate and break with several other horses in the afternoon in a familiar place, let alone a track that they have scarcely been to (and have to take a bus ride to) without a really compelling reason.
Secondly, not every training center is accredited or is capable of registering recorded works that you need to get gate approved and pass the entry box. That usually has to do with not having a clocker and not having adequate security.
Thirdly, as LaurieB touched in, training centers tend to be bullrings and some are indifferently maintained. The one I used lost its accreditation while I was there. Dennis Moore came by regularly while it was licensed by the CHRB and all was well. Afterwards, the owners started to notice instances of significant injuries creeping up. After wondering about it, I got bit hard and a lovely filly got hurt to the extent she needed surgery just to be pasture sound. (And yes snaffle, before you start in, she got the surgery and is currently free leased to a reproductive vet as an ET mare, producing expensive warmbloods and Futurity horses. We’re not all monsters–not even most of us.) Needless to say, all of the other horses got pulled out of there but I still kick myself.
Fourthly, there isn’t a racetrack trainer out there IME who doesn’t think he’s better than the farm or training center guy and then essentially redoes all of the training. You can get them up to a half and then the racetrack guy starts them out at a quarter or an eighth/ galloping and redoes the last 45- 60 days of training like it never happened. It’s a dance–especially the way Santa Anita was with stalls–but you might as well save the money and have the racetrack trainer do what he wants to do because he’ll do it anyway.
2 Likes
I would agree that 42 is pretty large.
I “assume” (yeah, yeah) that the EID data on fatalities includes both those in racing as well as morning training. I didn’t try to go back and see if there were CHRB reports for 2012.
In looking at EID data for SA for 2012, it appears that a total of 54 horses dies (if my math is correct). So, not sure where KTLA got 59 or rather, which numbers are skewed in the KTLA data, the racing fatalities or the training fatalities. So, I dunno and fairly challenging to determine exact details without going to SA for the information which I am not going to do 
On a different note,
BH again has an article today states CA governor wants more veterinary oversight.
My first thought was if the CA governor could do much more than recognize which end of the horse faced forward He wants every horse to be examined by independent vet and found fit to compete. Along the same lines as what we discussed here earlier. Made me think of a PPE… the examining vet can only state the horse in front of him is suitable for the job at that time and date only.
A racetrack executive and state racing official said all starters at Santa Anita are already examined on multiple occasions by veterinarians hired by the racetrack or the CHRB. They are subject to pre-race exams the morning of race day and are watched in the paddock, during warm-ups on the track, and when they are loaded into the starting gate. Horses have been accessible to out-of-competition testing for several years, too.
Despite the programs already in place, the California Horse Racing Board announced June 12 it will work with The Stronach Group to implement enhanced safety measures and reviews at Santa Anita.
Led by CHRB equine medical director Dr. Rick Arthur and chief steward Darrel McHargue, a five-member team will provide additional review of horses’ medical, training and racing history. This team consists of independent CHRB veterinarians and stewards, empowered to scratch horses that do not appear fit to run.
According to a joint statement from the CHRB and The Stronach Group, the horse safety review team will utilize a new, comprehensive evaluation rubric to determine if each individual horse is at elevated risk of injury before racing. These criteria will include any history on the Veterinarian’s List and Steward’s List as well as any medical history, race history, and physical observations of the horse.
Under the new protocols, every member of the review team must agree that the horse is not at elevated risk of injury in order to clear a horse to race. One dissenting member of the review team can prevent a horse from racing. TSG management has agreed to then instruct the Racing Secretary, who is currently responsible for deciding if a horse is fit to race, to deny the entry of any such horse and treat the review team’s recommendation as the final word.
Sounds wonderful to me until… what’s gonna happen when the first horse has a catastrophic injury following this extensive multi-team review? Who gets to tell a top trainer they think his training protocol on a horse the trainer has been working with on a daily basis that the trainer’s prep is wrong?
I dunno… like I said, sounds wonderful on first blush but is this really the right answer to the as yet unidentified question/problem and this is simply another ‘feel good’ for the public. What is going to be the hue and cry when the first horse breaks down (and IMO it will happen… just a matter of when).
No, however, there are bound to be some unmanufactured injuries within the stats if you think about it within her theory. Still, it’s only a theory. I won’t defend it, nor would I discount it. I would have no way, nor would I want to, know more about how to injure horses further or make them more susceptible to injury, although technically it probably can be done. Normal animal loving people don’t think that way. This is knowing that there are a lot of people who are not of that mindset. Have you seen the scandal at the Indiana dairy Fair Oaks Farms?
Following the money is a common theory for the reason for an awful lot of things. Look at the useless wars the U.S. has fought in: Vietnam and the Middle East. I believe the munitions companies are the ones who are the happiest with those wars and have greatly benefited from them. Everyone else thinks they were/are a waste of everything aimed at them.
1 Like
You do realize that dozens of different trainers have had horses break down. If it’s a “manufactured” injury, whomever is responsible would have to get into dozens of different barns. May as well blame space aliens.
2 Likes
Thanks for this post - it’s very educational.
The more I read about what is happening with racing, the more disheartening it is. Bottom line, it seems economic forces in this industry are brutal. With each new politician weighing in… the situation looks more doomed in California.
3 Likes
No more than any other horse discipline. And many state racing commissions/boards will sanction an owner/trainer if a horse they owned/trained is found at a non-TB auction. There is also a lot of growing support for TB rescues and rehoming organizations. You don’t see other disciplines policing the future of horses who can no longer compete. All in all, the racing horsemen really care about the horses and racing, and do what they can to make the horses happy and healthy. They get way more press than other disciplines, and bad press sells papers, and the press loves the bad apples.
2 Likes
I think you are a really rational person, @Virginia Horse Mom . I see eye to eye with you on most things. Which is why I feel compelled to pipe up when I don’t understand why you find horse racing “disheartening” or the economic forces “brutal.” What is causing you to feel that way?
I agree, the situation is not looking good in California. I am so frustrated with it that I’m doing the very thing I criticize racing powers for doing-- I’m burying my head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away. It has gotten out of control.
Our industry needs reform. We have come a long way in the past 20 or so years. I feel privileged to have a front row seat to watch these positive changes unfold. This is an industry driven by people who have made incredible sacrifices to support the animals and sport they love. But it is also an industry steeped in tradition, and some of the traditions we cling to are the very things that will be our undoing.
First and foremost, racing’s isolationist tendencies need to stop immediately. We’ve long eschewed everyone but our own: lawmakers don’t understand us, other horse people don’t understand us, the general public doesn’t understand us. Instead of educating them, we just keep on keeping on with our backs turned, singing how we don’t need them. Well, look where that got us-- now everyone has formed their own opinion out of misinformation and we’re not even doing a good job of trying to set the record straight for the sake of our own sport!
Sorry…getting off tangent here… stops preaching to the choir :o This whole situation has just been beyond upsetting for me.
6 Likes
Yes, sabotage would necessarily be on many trainers’ horses, not just one, if sabotage was the case… and I’m not saying it was… it was a theory. I know, it’s a theory you object to. That’s OK, it’s far fetched… but sometimes far fetched things happen… ahem… (cough cough President Trump)
1 Like
@Palm Beach Thanks for responding to me, and giving me some food for thought.
@Texarkana I see eye to eye with you very frequently as well, and thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic.
I have been following this thread, and a few others in the racing forum, because I think some of the voices who speak up here are the very most informed on these boards. I learn quite a bit from reading what many of you post. My perception of the folks who work on the backstretch and the few personal friendships I have with multiple folks who have actual experience in the industry has actually biased me in favor of the racing industry. Some of the very BEST horsemen and horsewomen I know, got most of their knowledge on the backstretch. I respect them immensely.
So I think I did a poor job in articulating what I was trying to say about the economics I see, and why I am disheartened about the current situation in terms of Thoroughbred racing in the US. I’ll try again, and if you guys think I am still not “getting it” - let me know. I genuinely want to get it. I have had a deep love of Thoroughbred racing my whole life. The breakdowns are awful… no one who loves Thoroughbreds for who and what they are is indifferent with respect to breakdowns. but I am not in the camp of those who want to see the industry shut down. I’d love to see the industry improved from within. With reduced breakdown statistics because of meaningful reform, and better lifelong outcomes for horses coming off the track.
I’m disheartened, because it seems like the direction is more in line with various tracks shutting down, and with special interest groups and politicians jumping in to push for “reforms” that they like in terms of sound bites … but the very same “reforms” are really only politically successful. These reforms often have nothing to do with actually improving racing as a whole, when I read analysis from folks on the inside of the industry. It’s disheartening to watch the whole mess of media coverage… and preening politicians catering to totally uninformed people always annoys me…
I will also, politely, push back on the notion that the growth in rescue organizations, the whole OTTB rehab into second career movement, and all the fundraising on the part of rescue and rehab organizations are a totally healthy thing for the industry. I’m 40 this year, and have been riding OTTBs that made their way into 2nd careers since I was in grade school. Like many many other people. I am conflicted about the current “trendiness” of OTTBs… especially in the sport of eventing. I know of some GREAT professionals in the eventing community with direct connections to good horsemen/trainers on the track. These folks can and do routinely source good 2nd career prospects via such connections. Horses that fall into this category are just not fast enough… but are sound, have decent conformation and temperaments, and are often SLIGHTLY profitable projects for reasonably skilled sporthorse professionals to buy cheap, put a little training into, a few show miles into, and then turn around and sell to an amateur owner for a good second career home. I think that’s great. But the sale prices for the decent OTTBs like this are still only around $10,000. Or less. A person can buy a registered Warmblood weanlings in a North America for that price. When it comes to the average lower level amateur, trying to compete in hunters, jumpers, dressage, and frankly at the lower levels of eventing, the Warmblood routinely beat the OTTBs because the Warmblood often has movement the judges more frequently reward. So no matter how much folks go on about how wonderful and rewarding it is to take an OTTB and compete them in a 2nd career, there are certain economic realities, and competitive realities in terms of other equine sports that will always put firm limits on the market for these horses. Even the perfect ones.
Furthermore, the “trendiness” that currently seems to accompany the idea of amateur competitors in other sports taking on an OTTB as a mount, and “rehabbing” or “retraining” it, has also lead to another issue that is readily apparent to those watching closely. I see an alarming number of amateurs or “professionals” with non-existent competition records, who are neither skilled enough, nor knowledgeable enough, trying to work with unsuitable/unsound horses that have come off the track. I also know of multiple, really kind adult amateurs who seem to have jumped on the current OTTB bandwagon, and procured a Thoroughbred one way or another who is really not sound, and not likely to ever be successful at sport or a good mount for them. Some of the people I am thinking of have put significant amounts of money into these horses trying to get them sound… in some cases to the tune of 5 or even 10 times the actual purchase price of the horse… but all too often these folks eventually end up trying to find an affordable way to unload the horse. Because it either never does get truly sound, or it basically never places in the ribbons even at the lowest levels of a given sport. The end result a not great for the horse or the owner. So they then are in the position of needing to unload this now 8 or 9 year old horse… and people like me do wonder what happens to the population of track horses who were a failure in their initial 2nd career homes, and are now 8 or 9 … and still slightly unsound, or poorly trained… what happens to them? To be blunt, I know I don’t want to purchase and support one of these horses. Neither do any of the knowledgeable amateur or professional people I know. Sad… but true. Options for all these horses are not ideal.
So we then get to the issue of rescues, sanctuaries, etc. The whole TAA certification process is a good thing, and I do not want to take away from the good work that great people are doing out of love for these horses, and Thoroughbreds in general. But there are definitely an awful lot of stories about 501c3 organizations that are problematic for one reason or another. They might start out as a well run endeavor, then management changes, or the primary people running the organization have personal issues… and all of a sudden… there are significant numbers of starving, neglected, teenage horses found. At which point more rescues and fundraising takes place, the horses go from one rescue org to another, and on and on it goes. Some of you all are in California… a recent example of what I am speaking of is C.E.R.F. You all probably know far more than I do about what happened with them… but it’s an awful thing for the horses that were starved over the course of the last year.
So the economic challenge that I am driving at is that we have a supply and demand problem with respect to mediocre racehorses. Much less unsound mediocre racehorses. Or mediocre racehorses with nasty attitudes and bad movement. Horses can live an average of 25 years. And correct me if I’m wrong, but the vast majority of racehorses are finished with their careers by age 5… one way or another. So we have a sizeable population of horses out there for which there is not a good market. And encouraging the growth of more rescue and sanctuary organizations is not in the best interest of these horses (just my opinion). The cost of supporting an unsound, unrideable TB for a decade or more is not small. It is no wonder that there are regular situations with well intentioned rescues or sanctuaries getting in over their heads, and horses ending up neglected and starved. In my humble opinion… in many ways this is a component of the current “welfare” crisis that is not getting nearly enough attention or discussion. No one who loves horses likes the low end auctions, feedlots, or horse slaughter that goes on in other countries. No one who breeds horses, or who trains racehorses goes into it intending for a horse to end up that way. But that’s eventually where horses go when supply exceeds the market, they are slow, they are lame, and they are unrideable or dangerous to handle.
Yes - there are attempts to have retirement homes and sanctuaries for these horses, as well as many others. And rules preventing the sale of OTTBs coming off the track at auctions after a failed racing career. And laws outlawing horse slaughter within the US. But none of these factors are a viable solution to the very real problem that we have a sizable population of unsuccessful horses coming off the track in this country who have issues, and limited usefulness/value/prospects in terms of finding good homes for the next 20 years of their lives. The industry relying on all these aftercare organizations strikes me as an incomplete solution. All the chatter about aftercare organizations and rescues, etc, is fine, but we still have a supply of low to no value horses that is larger than the number of available good homes. sooner or later it leads to horses going to auctions, feedlots, and on a truck somewhere heading either north or south… or winding up neglected. Maybe I am totally underestimating the number of current racehorse owners willing to pay for the next 20 years of feed and board and care for their unsuccessful racing retirees that are not marketable in terms of second career homes. If so - let me know. Hopefully I am underestimating the number of trainers and owners who are quietly making the decision to humanely put down 5 year old horses that are retiring and likely to have chronic problems with soundness. But there are a lot of those floating around on the secondary market, and a lot of limited resources get spent on them. I see it. And with so many coming off the track in need of second careers… it seems like racing should not try to punt the broken ones onto the secondary market and unsuspecting people.
So back to brutal economics…
From the outside looking in, reduced numbers in terms of foal crops each year, with increased quality in terms of value as racehorses first and foremost is an obvious solution to the whole dilemma of an oversupply of horses relative to the number of available homes from age 5 to age 25. Typically a reduction in supply of anything helps support prices as well. From the raw numbers of foal crops in North America I have seen, and reports of prices at various Thoroughbred auctions… this is exactly what has been happening. The size of Thoroughbred foal crops has been reducing for the most part since the mid 90s… but auction prices are still quite healthy. Also, the numbers of young prospects purchased at auction in North America by foreign buyers has been healthy for quite a while according to a recent article I read. And there definitely seems to be a bit of a market for stallions who are not a top tier prospect in Kentucky in terms of going to stand at stud in another country.
all of these things seem to be positive indicators when it comes to the long term economic viability of the Thoroughbred industry in North America. And I for one want the industry to remain viable. For a number of reasons.
HOWEVER, many of you from within the industry have spoken about the economic problems that arise when field sizes are too small. Tracks stop being profitable. This is a significant issue at Santa Anita, and in California Racing in general. I admittedly didn’t quite grasp that until recently, and have wrapped my head around that because of discussions on these threads. When small field sizes happen at one or more tracks over a sustained period of time in a given state… the industry has no choice but to reduce racing dates or shut down certain tracks, or both. Which seems to have been happening at various locations across the country.
I see far more tracks shutting down than tracks being built.
What is especially disconcerting about the case of California though, and again… correct me if I am wrong… but even with the closure of other tracks, and consolidation, field sizes at Santa Anita remained a problem. Furthermore… the schedule there meant horses were training and racing on that track for an extended period, relatively speaking. When the bad weather and rain happened in the winter and beginning of 2019, they sealed the track over and over to keep operations going… and problems ensued.
so the economic pressures of a shrinking industry and consolidation within that state eventually led to a series of decisions that created a really bad situation for the horses and all their connections at Santa Anita this year. Add to it the relentless media coverage and the politics specific to California in particular? I’m not hopeful that California Racing will survive. And if it doesn’t… The group of people who want to see racing end altogether will be emboldened, will get noisier, and will focus on a new target. My bet would be New York. The political climate there and the general voting age population has much in common with California.
I hope I’m wrong… but that’s what I see right now, and what I find disheartening. I want to see healthy reform, and an improved, but probably smaller industry that can survive over the long run. With fewer horses coming off the track and landing in problematic situations. I’d love to see more stories about wealthy owners within the sport of racing funding retirement options. My guess is that many do… but there is not a lot of basic coverage about simple, responsible retirement. And social media is awash with unsuitable/unsound OTTBs all for sale at rock bottom prices to just about anyone… and the industry needs to deal with those horses in a more responsible way… one way or another. It’s disheartening to watch. But I’m mostly worried about the current situation in California, the media coverage and politicians, the dysfunction of all things Stronach… and a domino effect on all of racing if California Racing is shut down altogether.
Does any of this make more sense? Thanks for bearing with me if you read this far.
1 Like
This is interesting: https://ktla.com/2019/06/11/santa-anita-horse-death-toll-nowhere-near-tracks-deadliest-year/
A link to this same KTLA report was posted in 578
I don’t object to it, there is just no logic to it. As I said before, you may as well blame space aliens.
Virginia horse mom- perhaps it would be better for the industry if racing was outlawed in certain states. Trainers in those states could still train and leave the state to compete. I would not be upset if racing was shutdown just because they are producing horses that are physically used up by the time they leave the track. I hate putting down a young horse due to incurable lameness issues. It is heartbreaking.
The answer to Virginia Horse Mom’s quandary is to bring back horse slaughter for pet food (and people food, if anyone wants to cook with horse). It definitely served a purpose by finding another valuable use for broken and unusable horses.
The costs of after racing care and the bad publicity that racing has to face are threats to racing’s survival. The pragmatic solution is slaughter. Romantic ideals that we simply can’t afford produce positive harm to the horses.
I’ve never understood why we can embrace euthanasia for broken horses but not slaughter in regulated plants. The horse is still dead, but slaughter produces value and euthanasia doesn’t.
We have to feed our pets some kind of meat; why not horse? Animals are going to die, and why not broken horses?
2 Likes
I hear you. I wish someone could provide an example of humane horse slaughter. By and large… it seems problematic in terms of how it is implemented.
I have my own small farm, and enjoy caring for my own horses on a daily basis. But I am not representative of the typical owner these days. And I will readily admit, if a single one of mine was chronically unsound, and I couldn’t easily support their retirement on pasture and still adequately feed them and provide regular farrier and vet care… I would lean towards choosing a humane and peaceful end for them. It’s responsible.
I think there are a lot of racehorses coming off the track who are in need of responsible owners. But the reality is that means putting down a lot of horses much earlier in the process, in numbers that will exceed the number of horses breaking down on the track. And I have zero faith in the media in terms of honestly evaluating something like that, and fairly reporting about it.
So everyone will continue talking about aftercare programs, rescues, sanctuaries, and bills banning slaughter, and then talk a to. About reducing breakdowns.
As for breakdowns… people will also continue to blame bad breeding. I enjoy studying breeding in depth. And really don’t align with people who seem to malign breeders at every opportunity. From an economic perspective, the US TB industry is the major viable horse breeding industry in this country. I don’t want to help tear it down.
Culling the least successful products of any horse breeding industry is always an issue. But I am pretty clear on what happens in the Warmblood industry in Europe. I think it would be kind of stupid for me to ride Warmbloods… but then demonize the US racing industry because failed racehorses do end up going to slaughter one way or another.
Forgive me if I am making too many assumptions or being too blunt though. I wish there were good homes for all of them. But there aren’t. It’s reality
1 Like
@Virginia Horse Mom - you repeatedly use the word “reform,” but racing has been working on the fatality issue for over a decade. Google the Equine Injury Database and spend some time reading the most recent reports. And wrt breeding, breeding is unregulated any anyone can breed a horse. Even with careful breeding, there is no guarantee of quality. I once owned a AP Indy out of a GSW mare that could barely outrun me. Maybe if there were fewer backyard and amateur sport horse breeders we could find better homes for the ex race horses.
1 Like
@4horses - I’m not sure I totally understand how outlawing racing in certain states, but having trainers train there and then ship to other states to compete would solve problems in the industry. But if you see something obvious that I am just blind too … please enlighten me.
It seems like various states have support for breeding that is fundamentally tied to racing incentives in that state. And training tracks are the link in many ways between those two parts of the industry. All three seem to work together on some level in states where the industry is healthiest. In addition to major auctions… like the ones in Kentucky, Florida, New York, and Maryland.
Some states seem to have viable tracks, but less robust markets in terms of Thoroughbred breeding and training. I don’t readily know of a state that has no real racing going on, but does have much in the way of Thoroughbred breeding and training, and has youngsters routinely shipping to another state to race. But I am hardly an expert - please enlighten me to obvious examples
I also hate hate the fact that horses come off the track unsound. Putting down a young horse for that reason is almost always sad. But I am not in favor of perpetuating the idea that all sound racehorses coming off the track can and should go on to 2nd careers as sporthorses. Some do not make good sporthorses. Unmarketable unsuccessful sporthorses also get abused… most of the time by folks who are less competent and less professional in terms of horsemanship than the limited sample of people I know who have real experience working on the backstretch, and developing horsemanship from that experience.
I find that honest decent people with lots of experience with horses are capable of acknowledging this dilemma, and understand that humanely putting down young horses who have very poor poor prospects for a soft landing when they come off the track is a very tough thing. But it also is something that would have saved many many horses literally YEARS of suffering as they passed from one bad situation to another after leaving the track.
2 Likes
I think if it was outlawed in some states, it would force smaller operations out of the business. That may reduce the number of excess horses produced. Similar to Florida ending greyhound racing.
