Fans of racing (and those who aren’t): Speak up
By Gina Spadafori
May 5, 2008
I love horse-racing, and I admit it openly. I follow it year-in and year-out, and have done for decades. Not as a gambler … but as a fan. I often watch it on a horse-racing channel out of the corner of my eye while I write. My big trip every summer is my weekend at Del Mar. I do not want it abolished — and I’m realistic enough to know it won’t be, anyway — but I want it reformed. For the horses, and for the jockeys. (Jockeys, too, risk their lives every time they go to the post.)
So … I’m joining with Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly in her call for change. We choose not to watch future Triple Crown races, and we will be letting the networks and sponsors know why. From Dolittler:
This action means fewer viewers supporting NBC’s coverage…and its sponsors. And though our impact may well prove minor, it counts tremendously to know that even one set of eyeballs—yours—is disaffected enough to turn away.
Each pair that does so represents one more step away from the thoroughbred racing industry’s continued legitimacy in its current incarnation. If its taste is for the greenery of the sport, as we suspect, our decisive inaction should prove helpful for the welfare of the horses involved.
[...]
Understand that I’m not looking to see racing come to an end. I’m attempting to use our leverage as viewers to force the industry to pay attention to the changes they should be making:
1-no more dirt tracks
2-smaller fields (20 horses is crazy)
3-more sound genetics (a switch in tracks may go a long way towards reaching this)
4-increasing the racing ageIf any other sport had the casualty rate of thoroughbred racing (1.5 per every 1,000 race starts), you can bet we’d be looking for ways to solve it.
I don’t think big fields are a problem, Derby aside — most tracks struggle to fill fields and Europeans run large fields routinely. But the tracks, the drugs, the breeding and the racing age … these are all contributing factors and must be dealt with. The time is long past to do something about this.
Many people inside the industry want to reform. I have seen myself the great love of horses — not for racehorses in general but each horse as an individual - shown by the people who race, train and care for them. Tradition and money are keeping change from being made, even by people in the industry who want it and are working for it. Let’s help these insiders win. Money talks. Don’t watch the Preakness or the Belmont. Next year, the Derby be damned. And let NBC and the sponsors (Yum! Brands, Visa) know why.
More: The HSUS, which seems more and more to be working to distance itself from PETA (especially with regard to movement for animal shelter reform, and to the reform of the factory farm and livestock slaughter industries), warns the racing industry that it fails to reform itself at its own peril. From Wayne Pacelle’s blog:
The tragic death of Eight Belles, as discomfiting and disturbing as it was, is unlikely to reorder our priorities. We’ll say a few words about horse racing, as do the commentators and industry press, but we’ll return to our priorities in a couple of days. But that’s a mistake for us all. This industry has not had a rigorous critic to set it in the straight and narrow, and major problems have grown and festered. It’s time for the thoroughbred industry to deal with its problems, and if it does not, animal advocates may well decide they can no longer continue to give the industry a free pass.
Here are some of the historic problems. Drugging of injured horses to keep them running, which makes vulnerable horses more susceptible to breakdowns. Racing horses too young. Because the marquee events feature 3-year-olds, these horses must start racing at the tender age of two years, and that’s well before their skeletal systems are sturdy enough to endure the pounding from the rigors of the race track. And third, racing horses on track surfaces that are not forgiving—with American tracks favoring dirt surfaces over grass or synthetics.
And then there are the problems coming to light more than ever—problems related to breeding. Breeding too many horses, and waiting for someone else to clean up the problem. And breeding them for body characteristics that make these animals vulnerable to breakdowns, especially those spindly legs on top of these stout torsos.
[...]
It’s up to the industry. Deal with your problems, or animal advocacy groups and others not all that interested in horse racing will be forced to weigh in.
On NBCsports.com (must be noted that NBC is taking a lot of heat for its cowardly “look away, be happy” coverage), Mike Celizic writes:
It’s never a good idea to have the stars of a live performance watched by tens of millions die on camera. And when that happens during your showcase event twice in three years, you’d better fix it. If you don’t you’ll find you won’t have an event. Horse racing had better wrap its collective brain around this simple truth.
[...]
If there was shock at Barbaro’s fate, there was outrage at Eight Belles’. Suddenly, critics who had been writing bright and breezy celebrations of an ancient sporting tradition decided enough was enough. They added in the death by euthanasia of George Washington at last year’s Breeder’s Cup and another horse that had to be put down at Churchill Downs on Friday, and decided the sport had reached a level of carnage that left no alternative but to shut it down.
The New York Times sounded that trumpet. PETA dug its spurs into the mess: Horse racing must be banned, Eight Belles’ jockey must be suspended, criminal charges must be considered.
In a word: whoa.
Finally, Andrew Beyer, who may be the best horse-racing writer of all time, retired from the Washington Post but writing for the Post today:
Eight Belles was a tragic manifestation of a problem that is more pronounced every year. America’s breeding industry is producing increasingly fragile thoroughbreds. They may not break down, but they have shorter and shorter racing careers before going to stud to beget even more fragile offspring.
The facts are irrefutable. In 1960, the average U.S. racehorse made 11.3 starts per year. The number has fallen almost every year, and now the average U.S. thoroughbred races a mere 6.3 times per year. Almost every trainer whose career spans the decades will acknowledge that thoroughbreds aren’t as robust as they used to be.
There are at least two good explanations for this phenomenon. In earlier eras, most people bred horses in order to race them, and they had a stake in the animals’ soundness. By contrast, modern commercial breeders produce horses in order to sell them, and if those horses are unsound, they become somebody else’s problem. Because buyers want horses with speed, breeders have filled the thoroughbred species with the genes of fast but unsound horses.
[...]
The Big Brown scenario is almost too easy to predict. He’ll run brilliantly and be retired in the fall as his owners sell him for stud duty — probably to a sheik. His whole career will have lasted no more than nine races. Committed racing fans may not want to invest too much emotion in a colt who they know will be here today and gone tomorrow. And the casual racing fans who were repelled by what they saw in the Derby may tune out the Triple Crown altogether.
Here’s the rest. Andy, what do you say when the non-casual fans tune out the Triple Crown, too?
Idea: Providing a sample protest letter with the main points outlined is often useful as many people feel at a loss to know what to say in a letter, even if they agree with the protest.
Comment by slt — May 5, 2008 @ 7:02 am
Great idea. Will do ASAP.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 5, 2008 @ 7:04 am
My family won’t be watching horse racing any longer. This was beyond pathetic and horrible. In my layperson opinion, these horses are bred to have these defects - fragile legs - just like many puppy mills breed dogs or cats to have defects (such as flat faces in Persians) that are considered acceptable and desirable by the public. Please do provide a contact so that we may make our opinions heard.
Comment by Carol — May 5, 2008 @ 7:24 am
I have sent my letters. Thank you for providing the contact information. Something has to change before another magnificent horse pays with his or her life.
Comment by catmom5 — May 5, 2008 @ 7:39 am
When you do write that letter, Gina, I’ll sign it.
Comment by Susan — May 5, 2008 @ 7:41 am
So will I.
Comment by Susan Fox — May 5, 2008 @ 8:00 am
What do you all think about opening up 3 positions for any breed or bloodline, entrance via lottery to qualifiers have to have winning time at a all mixed-breed trial to take place at any member track… (generating more revenue for tracks and excitement for viewers that maybe the newcomer mixed genetic horse can win).
Racing age older… ultrasound scans of all contestants legs? (or whatever is used for leg bone strength… bone density scan?
Do any of you think straight tracks will help since they seem to bunch up towards center lane?
Comment by rose-aka the Drew fan club — May 5, 2008 @ 8:00 am
How about a petition?
Comment by 2CatMom — May 5, 2008 @ 8:00 am
This is me not knowing anything about horse racing, but those other two races: Are they both dirt tracks?
And if they are, is there a widely televised race that’s not?
Would an effort to encourage races on the new tracks be potentially helpful for the reform-specific crowd?
I understand that’s not the only issue at stake here, but it does seem to be a big, somewhat easily fixable one.
My logic is that if the tracks that were the new material were “rewarded” along with the protesting of the dirt tracks, there might be even more of an effort to reform.
Again though, horse-racing, horses in general for that matter, are very foreign to me.
Comment by Christine — May 5, 2008 @ 8:46 am
Yes, the tracks for the Preakness Stakes at Pimlico (Baltimore) and the Belmont Stakes at Belmont Park(Elmont, NY) are both dirt. (Although both facilities also have turf tracks.)
Many if not most American/Canadian tracks have a dirt (or synthetic) main track and a turf track. Neither turf nor synthetic will make the sport completely safe, although synthetic and turf both are statistically safer than traditional dirt. (Even American turf courses are different than European turf courses … European turf races are run on “mushier” courses, while American turf tends to be harder.)
Many big stakes races are run on synthetic tracks, including some key Derby preps. And of course, there are turf races every day of racing.
There are an increasing number of synthetic surface tracks, most notably in California, where they were legally required to switch (with the exception of Bay Meadows, which got an exemption because it’ll likely close forever after this weekend).
The track surfaces are only part of the answer, albeit the one that the state racing boards can force into place (as happened in California). Stricter drug policies and testing can also be mandated across the industry, and a lot of trainers would like that since it’s all rather a hodge-podge of regulation now and cheating runs rampant.
As for the trickiest issue of all, breeding … well, that’s going to be like herding cats to reform.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 5, 2008 @ 9:05 am
“As for the trickiest issue of all, breeding … well, that’s going to be like herding cats to reform.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 5, 2008 @ 9:05 am
BUT… if breeders were required to wait to race their horses until they were more mature and the drugs/cheating were better controlled and the tracks were changed - sounder horses would have to be selected for (I hope).
Comment by slt — May 5, 2008 @ 9:13 am
For those who are saddened and upset by this sad event and want to do something, I ask you to *please* look carefully at petitions, blogs, and polls before you sign. I’ve seen a flood of poorly-researched and very angry petitions that will do more harm than good. I have not seen a petition yet that I would sign.
Countless horses and people are affected by changes in the sport of racing- we cannot regulate one element without preparing for how it will impact the industry. I understand how sad and painful it is to see a horse die on the track and I understand why folks are angry. But it reminds me of the suggestions that have been thrown around in light of last week’s two fatal equine accidents at Rolex (a four-star event): we need to learn more before we change a sport/industry.
My condolences to the connections of the talented filly, Eight Belles. From what I’ve heard and read in interviews, everybody involved with the filly is devastated. For those who follow racing, these are the people who owned and trained Hard Spun last year. Larry Jones, the trainer, rides his horses himself and really seemed to be especially fond of the filly. Jones is known for creating a strong base of endurance on his horses.
What happened to Eight Belles to cause the breakdown? I’m not sure but they are going to do an autopsy before they cremate her. I saw her bear out in the stretch, but it might just be her running style since I saw a similar move in her workout earlier in the week. My hunch is that some sort of injury occurred in the stretch and then the ankle really fell apart as she was being pulled up. Interviews with Dr. Bramlage indicate that he’s never seen anything quite like this before. Perhaps it was simply a bad step on top of another bad step. There are photos and videos of the breakdown out there if you want to see for yourself.
Who else can be blamed? As far as I can tell, this is the only catastrophic breakdown in the history of the Kentucky Derby. Some say that the track was worked too hard and there was not enough cushion for the horses. They got tons of rain the day before so it’s been said that the track was hard from all of the grooming. But the horses did not run any faster than they did in previous years- as a matter of fact, Secretariat’s 1973 Kentucky Derby record still stands today. Some say that Eight Belles’ light bone density can be blamed. The *rough* estimate is that one racehorese in 1,000 suffers a fatal breakdown. How does that stack up to fatal injuries in other equine sports? We need more research to determine this. Speed causes the catastrophic injuries/fractures, but how many horses of other disciplines suffer prolonged injuries (navicular, soft tissue trauma, joint degeneration) that eventually require euthanasia? We need more research- we cannot make more rules until we know exactly what is wrong.
How could this have been avoided? I don’t think that synthetic racing surfaces are the answer and I think that they need more work before our horses train and race on them. I understand why a racetrack in a difficult environment might use synthetic surfaces, but I think that well-maintained dirt and turf are best on a horse’s feet. We cannot change the tracks overnight.
The changes that are needed will take a long time and I fear that the anger and sadness of well-meaning horse/animal lovers will change the sport for their own purposes and not for the needs of the horses and their humans.
Comment by Sarah K. Andrew — May 5, 2008 @ 9:28 am
Hey there SA! Glad you saw your Kudos from Gina. I was trying to figure out how to get that to you!
Back to the question at hand - I believe it is a complex problem without a simple fix. However, don’t you think that raising the racing age would be a fairly simple change (yes I know - those whose bottom lines are affected will scream bloody murder!) for the better?
And along with that, how about changing from the “traditional” Thoroughbred birthday (for those who don’t know - ALL Thoroughbreds celebrate their 1 year birthday on January 1 following their birth regardless of what month they were actually born in) to REAL birthdays so that decisions - again - are made on the horse babies’ actual age and condition?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 5, 2008 @ 10:23 am
I’ve seen a ton of uninformed commentary floating around the Interwebs last night and this morning. I’m open on the issue of track surfaces, although the statistics do seem to suggest the synthetic surfaces are safer, but I’m willing to listen to those who know more than I on this subject.
But it’s not like many, many passionate horse racing folks haven’t been pushing to stop racing the horses so young for a long time now. I think that one is really a no-brainer. And as for making regulation of things like doping more uniform — seems like a no-brainer for an honest trainer, too.
But some of the stuff I’ve seen today is just batpoop insane. I generally find that before one forms strong opinions on things, one might do best to actually know what they’re talking about, and what they’re basing those opinions on.
And I’m not talking about commentors here, by the way — I think the response here has by and large been pretty rational and thoughtful.
Comment by Christie Keith — May 5, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Christie writes: But some of the stuff I’ve seen today is just batpoop insane. I generally find that before one forms strong opinions on things, one might do best to actually know what they’re talking about, and what they’re basing those opinions on.
Ah c’mon, Christie: An informed opinion? Where’s the fun in that?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 5, 2008 @ 10:44 am
I agree- I’m very pleased to read the discussion on this blog. There are quite a few savvy Pet Connection-ites out there ;^)
My opinion is that drug regulations will improve the safety of the sport more than regulating the racing age.
I’ve read that the horse evolved to travel over crushed vegetation. If we want the horse to travel as naturally as possible, we’d race them over something like that. It appears that the catastrophic breakdown rate decreases by approx 3% (if I remember correctly) on synthetics, but we’ve only had synthetics in place for a few years in the US. But there are also reports of more exhaustion and soft tissue injuries on synthetic racing surfaces. Anecdotally, I prefer to ride my own horse (not a racehorse- he’s 29!) on properly groomed dirt and I don’t care for synthetic riding surfaces.
The 2004 Horse & Hound study gets trotted out every few months by racing people, but in case you have not seen it, it’s a very enlightening study that was released in 2004 about fractures. One big finding was that the first year of racing is most risky for fractures, regardless of the age of the horse. So if you start your colt at 5, he’s at a similar risk for a fracture as if you started him at 2.
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk.....59725.html
“The second significant finding was that there was a large increase in risk of fracture in horses in their first year of racing.
………………………
This effect of racing experience was not dependant on the age of the horse, with no significant difference in the amount of risk between a horse which started racing as a two-year-old in comparison with, say, a five-year-old. Thus two-year-old racing is in itself not a risk for sustaining a serious bone injury other than it would be the horse’s first year of racing.
So changing the racing programme to reduce the emphasis on the two-year-old season is unlikely to have a significant effect on the number of horses that sustain serious bone injuries at the racecourse.”
Comment by Sarah K. Andrew — May 5, 2008 @ 11:00 am
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 5, 2008 @ 10:23 am
“Hey there SA!”
Oops. That was SUPPOSED to read “Hey there AA!”
Darn keyboards . . . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 5, 2008 @ 11:05 am
Pat!!! I am AA and I am SA ;^)
Comment by Sarah K. Andrew — May 5, 2008 @ 11:08 am
I applaud you in your efforts to reform this sport of kings. Organized crime has its tentacles deeply embedded into the sport due to the gambling, however, so change will not be easy. I’m sure that has been a hinderance to reformation efforts by the insiders that were drawn to the sport out of their love for the horses.
Comment by Sally — May 5, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Okay - now that we’ve got THAT straightened out . . . .
So with regards to the idea that eliminating 2 and 3 year old races might not really affect the incidence of bone fractures - how about joint development? Someone on one of these threads made reference to a table that describes the age at which joint development is completed in a horse, and - much like in dogs - it was somewhere PAST the 2 year old mark (sorry I’m not remembering the precise numbers or terminology). Many serious agility competitors don’t want to see their dogs doing more than light work and limited jumping before the age of two for that very reason.
Don’t you think the longevity of the Thoroughbreds’ joint health would be improved by putting off more than limited training and work until that joint development was pretty close to complete?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 5, 2008 @ 11:23 am
The OTHER Pat: “Don’t you think the longevity of the Thoroughbreds’ joint health would be improved by putting off more than limited training and work until that joint development was pretty close to complete?”
It would be nice and it would most likely prolong the useful soundness of the horse, but I cannot say that it would prevent catastrophic breakdowns. Joint health would certainly increase if horses raced once they hit maturity (arguably age 5) but I honestly don’t think that there is any proof that it would decrease the risk of a catastrophic fracture.
Any horse at an elite level of competition is a candidate for joint degeneration. Conformational flaws and injuries also aggravate joints and can speed up arthritic changes. My horse is sickle-hocked and has been arthtic since he was 10 years old. He’s 29 now and until a recent paddock injury, we competed at training leve in local dressage shows (injury is healing and I’m back in the saddle as of this week-YAYYY). The arthritis can be managed and helped with work, but I never pushed him. When we did show jumping, we never competed over fences that exceeded 3 feet in height. I knew his limits (he still does not!) and I still have a sound and rideable horse beause of it.
Back to racehorses ;^) From what I’ve read, a horse requires training at a fast gallop to create the micro-fractures that actually strengthen bones. The galloping in workouts does indeed help the horse on race day. So for joints, I’d say that a mature horse would hold up longer, but for bone strength, it’s a fuzzier answer.
Comment by Sarah K. Andrew — May 5, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
I did not watch the race on Saturday. Can anyone clarify for me here? A friend who did watch told me the announcer was talking about this being the first Derby run on synthetic track. I guess synthetic underneath the dirt. Is this accurate or maybe the announce misspoke or my friend misheard?
Comment by slt — May 5, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
The Kentucky Derby was run on dirt- Churchill Downs has not changed over to synthetic.
Your friend might have heard them talking about this year’s Breeders’ Cup (to be run in October), which is being run on a synthetic surface for the first time.
Comment by Sarah K. Andrew — May 5, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Misheard or mis-spoke. The Kentucky Derby is run on dirt (Churchill Downs also has a turf course.)
They might have been discussing that some of the Derby prep races were run on synthetic. There was considerable discussion over whether horses who did well in those races would take to the traditional dirt track at the Derby.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 5, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
No, Sarah and I are not the same person. She’s a much better photographer, for one thing. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 5, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
AND she has a horse who looks really great in a party hat!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 5, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
This old thing???
http://www.flickr.com/photos/r.....2368191108
Comment by Sarah K. Andrew — May 5, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Or this one:
http://flickr.com/photos/rocka.....et-219309/
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 5, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
I like “The Prince of Darkness Would Like a Doughnut”:
http://flickr.com/photos/rocka.....805115652/
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 5, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
Yeah - I can tell he leads a REAL rough life!
(I just wish retired racehorses could have it so “rough”)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 5, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
“As for the trickiest issue of all, breeding … well, that’s going to be like herding cats to reform.”
Herding cats can be done! Reward system works around here. Then follow the leader comes into play ;)
Comment by straybaby — May 5, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Well I keep trying to post a link to a table - but I can’t. Have I been banned in Boston?
Comment by 2CatMom — May 5, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
No reason I know of… email me the link and I’ll edit it in…
Comment by Christie Keith — May 5, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
That’s good cause I thought I must have said something really bad! Now that I seem to be able to post again - I’ll give it one more try:
http://www.suite101.com/articl.....rses/69350
Let’s see if this works.
Comment by 2CatMom — May 5, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
I was turned off to horse racing years ago, when a similar accident happened to a filly, which wound up with her euthanized.
I decided at that time…no more horse races for me.
I do enjoy watching the horses run…they are magnificent animals. But if they run at the possible expense of their lives, then that’s where I draw the line.
I think that the time has come, when many are saying, “enough is enough.”
Comment by Marcy — May 5, 2008 @ 9:28 pm
I’m trying to picture myself winning Best in Show at Westminster (ha!) and I can imagine I’d be very excited and overcome with emotion BUT if say the Herding Group winner had gone down behind me and was being euthanized while I was being presented with my silver bowl and such - it’s hard for me to think I’d be screaming in delight and whooping it up, ya know?
Comment by slt — May 6, 2008 @ 5:51 am
In all of these blogs, I read Barbaro’s and George Washington’s names mentioned along with Eight Belles, but what about Charismatic in 1999? His left front leg was broken in two places at the finish of the Belmont.
These horses are started too young, pushed too hard and ‘roided up as babies to make ‘em bigger (hmm, think that has any effect on bone strength?) and drugged up so they can’t feel their injuries and put back on the track so they can earn their keep.
The whole flat-track racing industry makes me ill. Until there is a zero-drug policy, until horses aren’t raced until the *real* age of at *least* 4, until there is soundness criteria for entry and vets able to uphold the criteria, and until speed isn’t the only breeding criteria, the sport has and will continue to make me ill.
Comment by Deanna — May 6, 2008 @ 7:32 am