Feinstein Wants Santa Anita Halted

[alydar]

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/233922/despite-changes-feinstein-wants-santa-anita-halted?fbclid=IwAR0sPG-Ofrdm5qlq6UJU8m_OisS920qO8DAiqRvAf-Z6a_P67unec7EGyIo

[The_Turf_Monster]

It'd be nice if a little common sense given the spotlight came into play, like not running a 9 year old in a low level claiming race

[dilanesp]

At some point, when the shark keeps eating people, you have to close the beaches.

I think Belinda Stronach may be the only person in the industry who really knows how much trouble the sport is in here. It could be over as soon as November 2020.

The BC should be moved to Churchill, as I said in an earlier thread.

Santa Anita should close up early until the fall and should probably consider installing another synthetic track and getting the technology right this time.

To try to forestall a ballot initiative killing the sport, the Stronach Group should consider putting its own initiative on the ballot barring race-day medication, requiring the transfer of vet records for horses coming from out of state, and reducing live racing dates. That will give members of the general public concerned about the sport a reform plan to vote for.

If California's racing community doesn't get out in front of this, our sport will be dead here.

[PaceAdvantage]

The general public, as a whole, doesn't care about racing. Not one bit. This includes both the GOOD and the BAD about the sport.

How do I know? Because breakdows have been happening since the sport was invented. They were happening when I first got into it back in the late 1980s.

Go For Wand...Ruffian...Barbaro....a whole host of high profile breakdowns through the decades. Life moved on...the anti-racing folks never got the foothold to drive the narrative in those cases. And the public, which didn't care about racing, didn't care about dead horses.

But now it's different. Because the industry is allowing the anti-racing folks to drive the narrative big time. So that's all the public is going to hear and read about. And that's the side they will gravitate to...precisely because they don't care about racing.

This whole topic is a non-starter for the general public, unless they are artificially aroused and inflamed (and we all know how painful that can be).

This is becoming like the Iraq war, when the media would report on every single casualty during the war...soon there will be a daily running horse death count on the cover of every major Los Angeles paper like there was during the war (if it hasn't happened already).

The anti-racing folks finally have something they can ride off into battle with, and it's quickly becoming a very powerful tool.

Once again, racing gets caught flat-footed and behind the eight ball. Racing's thirst for suicidal tendencies appears unquenchable.

[dilanesp]

I think it's a little different.

The arc of history favors animal rights arguments. Not all of them-- the US isn't going to turn into a nation of vegans any time in any of our lifetimes-- but ones that involve allegations of cruel treatment of animals.

Here are some datapoints:

Cockfighting was once a thriving sport in the South and West. Now it is illegal everywhere.

Dogfighting is illegal, and a very good NFL quarterback's life and career was ruined for participating in it.

Bullfighting is illegal in the United States and has been banned in France and (in its lethal form) in Portugal, and has also been banned in parts of Spain, which is the country that brought it to the world's attention.

Greyhound racing, once one of the most popular pastimes in Florida, has been completely banned there.

Fast food restaurants are, under pressure, releasing more products based on Veggie Burgers.

Horse slaughter, once common, has been banned in the United States.

The Ringling Bros. circus had to shut down, and the only major nationwide circus producer does animal-free shows.

You aren't going to be able to fight this, or to convince people that they really shouldn't care about animal welfare arguments. Why? Because, honestly, people now live in cities. Folks in rural areas are comfortable with a lot of practices that involve the death and/or suffering of animals, or their use for work or entertainment purposes. In the cities? Animals are pets.

So once too much of a spotlight is shined on horse racing, that's it, we're on the defensive. And for whatever reason, this story about the deaths at Santa Anita finally did it, in the way that Ruffian and Go For Wand and Eight Belles never did. Part of the reason for this is probably that the sport is simply less popular than it used to be-- people are more afraid of taking on horse racing when there are 50,000 people at Aqueduct and Santa Anita every Saturday. And we have far more legal gambling, which means the public doesn't need us to get their gambling fix as they once did.

So we are now officially on the defensive. We either present a more humane form of horse racing that the public can buy into and accept, or we die, at least in California where animal rights is at its apex. Other states, especially more rural ones or where the horse business is a greater portion of the economy, can probably take more of a stand. (E.g., Kentucky, Arkansas.)

[horsefan2019]

New poster here. Santa Anita is my local horse track, the media and PETA members have been camped there. It doesn't matter if they install a synthetic track or not, these people want to shut down the track. They have an agenda.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Let's not act like this is some impulsive agenda. Times have changed and with social media, news at your fingertips, etc. the sight/news of a few dozen horses breaking down in a few months at one track is predictable news with predictable consequences

For the good of the sport, suspend the meet, put in an artificial surface, and pray that Del Mar is smart enough to card the bulk of its races as routes on the turf

[horsefan2019]

Let's not act like this is some impulsive agenda. Times have changed and with social media, news at your fingertips, etc. the sight/news of a few dozen horses breaking down in a few months at one track is predictable news with predictable consequences

For the good of the sport, suspend the meet, put in an artificial surface, and pray that Del Mar is smart enough to card the bulk of its races as routes on the turf


A couple of years ago those animal activists were trying to shut down Del Mar too. Their facebook page was littered with posts from those people. They are trying the same tactic with Santa Anita. The media has given them the ammo, probably more so since its a way bigger media market than San Diego.

[Dave Schwartz]

New poster here. Santa Anita is my local horse track, the media and PETA members have been camped there. It doesn't matter if they install a synthetic track or not, these people want to shut down the track. They have an agenda.

So, between Dilan and PA we have two magnificent posts detailing the situation, and then the new guy comes in and makes a short, concise, accurate post that sums up the real story.

Everybody's right on this.

And it really is agenda-based. But whose agenda?

[The_Turf_Monster]

A couple of years ago those animal activists were trying to shut down Del Mar too. Their facebook page was littered with posts from those people. They are trying the same tactic with Santa Anita. The media has given them the ammo, probably more so since its a way bigger media market than San Diego.

Totally agree but there is chum in the water right now with sharks circling, sometimes it's better to let it die down than try to make money for a month. If they can get through this month, the Del Mar meet, and the fair circuit with nothing too crazy happening, this dies down and goes away imo

[horsefan2019]

Listen to the language carefully. PETA is using this moment to try to get racing suspended all across the US. Its just not Santa Anita anymore. Santa Anita could install a synthetic surface in time for the fall meet and it won't make them happy. When you have language like "shut it down", "killing fields", and certain politicians from a political party who have no problem currying favor with these people, it is basically an all out war at this point. The sport will have to make changes in the future, otherwise I could see certain people in power that will probably try to empower a national body for more regulations, if not outright attempt to ban the sport in certain states.

[thaskalos]

I think it's a little different.

The arc of history favors animal rights arguments. Not all of them-- the US isn't going to turn into a nation of vegans any time in any of our lifetimes-- but ones that involve allegations of cruel treatment of animals.

Here are some datapoints:

Cockfighting was once a thriving sport in the South and West. Now it is illegal everywhere.

Dogfighting is illegal, and a very good NFL quarterback's life and career was ruined for participating in it.

Bullfighting is illegal in the United States and has been banned in France and (in its lethal form) in Portugal, and has also been banned in parts of Spain, which is the country that brought it to the world's attention.

Greyhound racing, once one of the most popular pastimes in Florida, has been completely banned there.

Fast food restaurants are, under pressure, releasing more products based on Veggie Burgers.

Horse slaughter, once common, has been banned in the United States.

The Ringling Bros. circus had to shut down, and the only major nationwide circus producer does animal-free shows.

You aren't going to be able to fight this, or to convince people that they really shouldn't care about animal welfare arguments. Why? Because, honestly, people now live in cities. Folks in rural areas are comfortable with a lot of practices that involve the death and/or suffering of animals, or their use for work or entertainment purposes. In the cities? Animals are pets.

So once too much of a spotlight is shined on horse racing, that's it, we're on the defensive. And for whatever reason, this story about the deaths at Santa Anita finally did it, in the way that Ruffian and Go For Wand and Eight Belles never did. Part of the reason for this is probably that the sport is simply less popular than it used to be-- people are more afraid of taking on horse racing when there are 50,000 people at Aqueduct and Santa Anita every Saturday. And we have far more legal gambling, which means the public doesn't need us to get their gambling fix as they once did.

So we are now officially on the defensive. We either present a more humane form of horse racing that the public can buy into and accept, or we die, at least in California where animal rights is at its apex. Other states, especially more rural ones or where the horse business is a greater portion of the economy, can probably take more of a stand. (E.g., Kentucky, Arkansas.)

And what's even worse is that the tax dollars generated by horseracing may no longer be enough to warrant the continued support of the politicians...in the wake of a growing public sentiment against the sport. With all the other forms of legalized gambling around, and this being an animal-loving country...how can the sacrifice of so many horses a year be justified just in the name of "sport"?

[PaceAdvantage]

...or to convince people that they really shouldn't care about animal welfare arguments.Here's where you lost me. I never said or implied such a thing should take place.

[Suff]

. They have an agenda.

Who doesn't?

To lay it on media and mal-adjusted animal lovers is to easy.

Due to technology we see animals in their natural habitat. You can go on Google or Youtube and see every living creature right down to parasites and fungus's.

In general, using animals for human pleasure or entertainment has fallen out of favor.

[thaskalos]

New poster here. Santa Anita is my local horse track, the media and PETA members have been camped there. It doesn't matter if they install a synthetic track or not, these people want to shut down the track. They have an agenda.

The horse racing industry and the horseplayers also have an agenda...and, who's to say whose agenda is the most valid?

[horsefan2019]

Who doesn't?

To lay it on media and mal-adjusted animal lovers is to easy.

Due to technology we see animals in their natural habitat. You can go on Google or Youtube and see every living creature right down to parasites and fungus's.

In general, using animals for human pleasure or entertainment has fallen out of favor.


Except these people are extremists.
These people got legislation making it illegal to sell goldfish in the Bay Area.
These people think that having pets is holding them captive.
These people think that riding an animal is abuse.
In short they do not want people using animals of any kind even if its a mutually beneficial relationship.

[dilanesp]

Here's where you lost me. I never said or implied such a thing should take place.

I didn't say you did.

[GMB@BP]

Essentially the PC police will come for whatever direction the wind is blowing.

Did you see two people seriously hurt at the Indy 500, and drivers get killed in that sport. Not horses, but people.

See, people know whats best for other people so sooner or later that sport will be dead as well.

So will football. Boxing is already dead. Just a matter of time until someone says no more, we have decided.

[Suff]

Except these people are extremists.
These people got legislation making it illegal to sell goldfish in the Bay Area.
.


Extremities.

For example by being involved in horse racing:
You believe if a Horse has no monetary worth at the race track then its ok to kill it and sell the meat. Because that happens. Often. Everywhere.

[thaskalos]

Except these people are extremists.
These people got legislation making it illegal to sell goldfish in the Bay Area.
These people think that having pets is holding them captive.
These people think that riding an animal is abuse.
In short they do not want people using animals of any kind even if its a mutually beneficial relationship.

Yes...but you lumped the media in with PETA when you said that they have an agenda. Isn't the sports media's job to report on the "injustices" of the sporting world? Isn't that what the sports media does in the OTHER sports?

[horsefan2019]

Yes...but you lumped the media in with PETA when you said that they have an agenda. Isn't the sports media's job to report on the "injustices" of the sporting world? Isn't that what the sports media does in the OTHER sports?


Except we know that certain media outlets have biases. Anybody who think the media is this saintly arbiter or truth is in for a reality check. The media cares about sensationalism and ratings these days. Hell, the media ignored Santa Anita for years until they found their next juicy headlines. Listening to these guys report on this has been painful at best and at worst terribly uninformed.

[thaskalos]

Except we know that certain media outlets have biases. Anybody who think the media is this saintly arbiter or truth is in for a reality check. The media cares about sensationalism and ratings these days. Hell, the media ignored Santa Anita for years until they found their next juicy headlines. Listening to these guys report on this has been painful at best and at worst terribly uninformed.

Has Santa Anita supplied an informed rebuttal to balance out the terribly uninformed coverage of the sensationalistic media?

[horsefan2019]

Has Santa Anita supplied an informed rebuttal to balance out the terribly uninformed coverage of the sensationalistic media?


I wouldn't matter what Santa Anita puts out in the press. For example they put out a press release that they didn't have any horse deaths for nearly 2 months, yet the media is counting every single horse death daily. Meanwhile in animal shelters just in LA county, tens of thousands of animals will be put to death annually, yet nobody from the media is camping out and doing a death recap on a daily basis. This is media sensationalism at its finest. They won't be happy until Santa Anita is shut down.

[woodbinepmi]

How long is it going to be when it's put on the ballot to outlaw horse racing in California just like they did in Florida with greyhound racing?

[Suff]

Meanwhile in animal shelters just in LA county, tens of thousands of animals will be put to death annually.

In my experience , currently I see more animal welfare on TV, News , Web, than at anytime in my life.

[Afleet]

New poster here. Santa Anita is my local horse track, the media and PETA members have been camped there. It doesn't matter if they install a synthetic track or not, these people want to shut down the track. They have an agenda.

ask them if they are for abortion

[cutchemist42]

I would just like to say that as a Canadian looking in that the USA itself itself has an ugly way of viewing treatment of animals. I think America is a dog loving/ pet loving country only because compared to its counterparts in the Western world, Americas factory farming and overall animal production is absurd.

I just find the animal battles American citizens focus on is so twisted.

[dilanesp]

Except we know that certain media outlets have biases. Anybody who think the media is this saintly arbiter or truth is in for a reality check. The media cares about sensationalism and ratings these days. Hell, the media ignored Santa Anita for years until they found their next juicy headlines. Listening to these guys report on this has been painful at best and at worst terribly uninformed.

There isn't any rule that says if you get away with something long enough, you get to do it forever.

The media ignored sexual harassment and assault in the entertainment industry for years. And you KNOW they knew about it. But once #metoo happened, the floodgates opened.

[thaskalos]

I wouldn't matter what Santa Anita puts out in the press. For example they put out a press release that they didn't have any horse deaths for nearly 2 months, yet the media is counting every single horse death daily. Meanwhile in animal shelters just in LA county, tens of thousands of animals will be put to death annually, yet nobody from the media is camping out and doing a death recap on a daily basis. This is media sensationalism at its finest. They won't be happy until Santa Anita is shut down.

The more I argue with you, the more likely it is for me to appear as the sort of anti-racing guy that you are railing against...when the truth is that I love this game, and I've been passionately supporting it for almost 40 years. I want this game to live on long after I am dead and gone...but that's not going to happen if the racing industry keeps their collective heads deep in the sand. These are serious issues being reported here, and they play on the heart-strings of the animal-loving public. Regardless of what our game has been able to get away with in the past...it cannot now be perceived as a blood-thirsty sport which holds no regard for its equine athletes, which are, after all, the sport's chief attraction. This isn't just about the Santa Anita breakdowns; there is also the disgraceful slaughterhouse issue nationwide...as well as the current employee underpayment policy presumed to be enacted by even the most successful trainers in this game. Put these issues all together, and our sport has a serious public-appeal problem...which the game's governing authorities can no longer afford to ignore.

The animal shelter deaths that you mention are disturbing, and the public knows about them...but there is no one that the public can blame for them...because the blame for that is shared by each and every one of us. Alas...the blame for the ills of horse racing is a lot more concentrated...and that warrants a much quicker response...IMO.

[GMB@BP]

Racing has done a good job of killing the sport, would seem a crime to let someone else finally deal the death blow.

[horsefan2019]

The more I argue with you, the more likely it is for me to appear as the sort of anti-racing guy that you are railing against...when the truth is that I love this game, and I've been passionately supporting it for almost 40 years. I want this game to live on long after I am dead and gone...but that's not going to happen if the racing industry keeps their collective heads deep in the sand. These are serious issues being reported here, and they play on the heart-strings of the animal-loving public. Regardless of what our game has been able to get away with in the past...it cannot now be perceived as a blood-thirsty sport which holds no regard for its equine athletes, which are, after all, the sport's chief attraction. This isn't just about the Santa Anita breakdowns; there is also the disgraceful slaughterhouse issue nationwide...as well as the current employee underpayment policy presumed to be enacted by even the most successful trainers in this game. Put these issues all together, and our sport has a serious public-appeal problem...which the game's governing authorities can no longer afford to ignore.

The animal shelter deaths that you mention are disturbing, and the public knows about them...but there is no one that the public can blame for them...because the blame for that is shared by each and every one of us. Alas...the blame for the ills of horse racing is a lot more concentrated...and that warrants a much quicker response...IMO.


I don't disagree with you that the sport needs to be cleaned up. But when you have people with rallying cries like not one more horse death, and their aim is to shut down the track, there is no middle ground with these people. You can stop the meet, change the surface over to synthetics, and enact a strict anti-drug policy and they would still not be happy. In essence these people want to do to horse racing what they did to the circus and Seaworld. Hell, if you listen to the press release of the PETA representative they applauded some of the recent changes by the track, but stated that their goal was to make horse racing extinct.

[thaskalos]

I don't disagree with you that the sport needs to be cleaned up. But when you have people with rallying cries like not one more horse death, and their aim is to shut down the track, there is no middle ground with these people. You can stop the meet, change the surface over to synthetics, and enact a strict anti-drug policy and they would still not be happy. In essence these people want to do to horse racing what they did to the circus and Seaworld. Hell, if you listen to the press release of the PETA representative they applauded some of the recent changes by the track, but stated that their goal was to make horse racing extinct.

PETA alone can't put an end to horse racing...any more than they can put an end to pet ownership in this country. PETA isn't the main problem here...the main problem is the incompetence and/or general apathy of the horse racing industry at large...who can't see a problem until it becomes a CATASTROPHE.

[The_Turf_Monster]

I don't disagree with you that the sport needs to be cleaned up. But when you have people with rallying cries like not one more horse death, and their aim is to shut down the track, there is no middle ground with these people. You can stop the meet, change the surface over to synthetics, and enact a strict anti-drug policy and they would still not be happy. In essence these people want to do to horse racing what they did to the circus and Seaworld. Hell, if you listen to the press release of the PETA representative they applauded some of the recent changes by the track, but stated that their goal was to make horse racing extinct.

There's no time here to clean it up, shut the track down and hope there's a big enough gap before the next headline that the activists find something else to move on to

[horsefan2019]

There's no time here to clean it up, shut the track down and hope there's a big enough gap before the next headline that the activists find something else to move on to

I'm very aware when this current meet ends. The point I was making is that these are the same activists that want to shut down the track and the sport period. They do not care how they do it, that is their goal. Just look at their reactions at the recent CHRB meet at Santa Anita.

[The_Turf_Monster]

I'm very aware when this current meet ends. The point I was making is that these are the same activists that want to shut down the track and the sport period. They do not care how they do it, that is their goal. Just look at their reactions at the recent CHRB meet at Santa Anita.

Agreed, so stop giving them a forum to do it

[cutchemist42]

Would this be a problem if Santa Anita had Woodbines safety record in a state like California?

[bob60566]

PETA alone can't put an end to horse racing...any more than they can put an end to pet ownership in this country. PETA isn't the main problem here...the main problem is the incompetence and/or general apathy of the horse racing industry at large...who can't see a problem until it becomes a CATASTROPHE.

I agree but at this present time the only group that has the power to make the necessary changes that need to be done. ASAP. is the Stronach Group.And if people do not like it to bad.

[castaway01]

Every time I read the "they have an agenda" rebuttal, I have to point out that these exact criticisms of horse racing have been raised here many, many times over the years. But now that horse breakdowns are being noticed outside of the racing "bubble", everyone is becoming defensive. It's a shame the industry didn't spend the last 30 years becoming active and addressing these issues instead of ignoring everything. Yes, some tracks and individuals have taken action, but this is just horse racing's "cover it up and hope it all blows over" tactics coming back to haunt it.

[FenceBored]

Would this be a problem if Santa Anita had Woodbines safety record in a state like California?

Yes, maybe not at this moment, but soon. In looking last night for figures on harness fatalities I ran across this article about Australia on harnesslink.

http://www.harnesslink.com/News/Horse-racing-deaths-revealed-for-the-first-time

While the main focus is on Thoroughbreds they're attacking the harness side as well and the harness fatality rate appears to be about 0.35 per thousand starts. ((13/36919)*1000), i.e. well below the Woodbine figure. The 88 horses who died on Woodbine's synth track (2009-2018) due to racing injuries within 72 hours of the race are still 88 horses who died due to racing. They won't focus on the fact that there were 97,588 starts and the rate is 0.90 per thousand. Nope, that's 88 horses over the last decade, compared to the 101 who died racing the Santa Anita main track (synth/dirt) over the same period.*




*See how I palmed the ball by not telling you how many starts were made over the Santa Anita main track in that decade (49,282)?

[classhandicapper]

There are two kinds of people the industry needs to be concerned about.

1. The average American that cares about the welfare of animals and will not look too kindly on any evidence of neglect or abuse. They will tolerate occasional accidents and even deaths because they understand that these things happen to animals in nature also, but they won't tolerate any sign of irresponsible behavior leading to unnecessary suffering or deaths.

2. Left wing animal rights terrorists.

IMO, the idea should be to continue working towards satisfying category #1 while exposing the spins, lies, deceit, career destruction, and any physical attacks on plant or people made by category #2 in their goal of destroying horse racing.

The PETA people are zealots. You should not negotiate with crazy people hell bent on your destruction. You should expose them for what they are.

Most people love animals but think PETA is a bunch of nuts. We should keep the perception that way while improving the safety and care of the horses because it's the right thing to do no matter what's going on.

[cutchemist42]

There are two kinds of people the industry needs to be concerned about.

1. The average American that cares about the welfare of animals and will not look too kindly on any evidence of neglect or abuse. They will tolerate occasional accidents and even deaths because they understand that these things happen to animals in nature also, but they won't tolerate any sign of irresponsible behavior leading to unnecessary suffering or deaths.

2. Left wing animal rights terrorists.

IMO, the idea should be to continue working towards satisfying category #1 while exposing the spins, lies, deceit, career destruction, and any physical attacks on plant or people made by category #2 in their goal of destroying horse racing.

The PETA people are zealots. You should not negotiate with crazy people hell bent on your destruction. You should expose them for what they are.

Most people love animals but think PETA is a bunch of nuts. We should keep the perception that way while improving the safety and care of the horses because it's the right thing to do no matter what's going on.

This is a great post. As a cat owner I've always laughed off PETAs view on animals and their practise and just shrugged it off as some extreme Cali-based animal cult with a few D list celebs.

[biggestal99]

2. Left wing animal rights terrorists.




I take offense at your characterization of the animal rights people as left wing


what makes them left wing as opposed to right wing animal rights terrorists?


Allan

[JeremyJet]

I take offense at your characterization of the animal rights people as left wing


what makes them left wing as opposed to right wing animal rights terrorists?


Allan

Because MSM is involved. MSM is the propaganda machine of the left.

[airford1]

I take offense at your characterization of the animal rights people as left wing


what makes them left wing as opposed to right wing animal rights terrorists?


Allan

The Wing Direction, Duh. This started with Diane the Bulldog Feinstein

[PaceAdvantage]

ask them if they are for abortionYou don't go there on the horse racing topics. Just don't do it.

[alydar]

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-santa-anita-stop-racing-20190529-story.html

The pressure gets stronger yet!!

[PaceAdvantage]

You can stop the meet, change the surface over to synthetics, and enact a strict anti-drug policy and they would still not be happy.Add in the absolute 100% fact that horses will still break down and die, even if everything implemented was working 100% correctly.

It might quickly become an absolute NO-WIN situation.

[PaceAdvantage]

The Wing Direction, Duh. This started with Diane the Bulldog FeinsteinThis thread will be shut down in 2 seconds if you guys keep going the politics route. It's not necessary, and it doesn't belong here.

[alydar]

You can criticize Feinstein all you want, but clearly she is responded to what she sees as an issue that her constituents care about. She is a politician after all, she is acting in a way that she sees will benefit herself and her potential voters. This thing is spiraling out of control and where it ends is anyone's guess.

[bks]

It'd be nice if a little common sense given the spotlight came into play, like not running a 9 year old in a low level claiming race

Game old horse. Favorite of mine.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Game old horse. Favorite of mine.

Running for the 6th time in 2019......this is the most obvious case of running a horse into the ground to maximize human profit I could imagine

[FenceBored]

Running for the 6th time in 2019......this is the most obvious case of running a horse into the ground to maximize human profit I could imagine


An average of 28 days between starts and no less than 16 days between any two starts is "the most obvious case of running a horse into the ground to maximize human profit [you] could imagine"?


At this rate he'd have run no more than 12-14 times this year. Aland has already run 14 times this year.


http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=9865068&registry=T

[The_Turf_Monster]

An average of 28 days between starts and no less than 16 days between any two starts is "the most obvious case of running a horse into the ground to maximize human profit [you] could imagine"?


At this rate he'd have run no more than 12-14 times this year. Aland has already run 14 times this year.


http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Horse&refno=9865068&registry=T

Using an anomalie isn't going to rationalize it. You've got an owner/trainer (same person) maximizing what he can out of a horse that ran down the class ladder over 7 seasons to get every last dollar out of it. This is the red meat that activists are going to get ahold of and use to publicize their cause. Racing needs to stop giving this to them

[classhandicapper]

I take offense at your characterization of the animal rights people as left wing

what makes them left wing as opposed to right wing animal rights terrorists?

Allan

Let's just say I'm guessing that if you asked their political views on every controversial issue in the country I'd take the "over" on left.

I picture the right wing loons arguing that when a horse's career is over they should be allowed to hunt them for sport.

[Jeff P]

Interesting quote from the LA Times editorial that Alydar linked to back in post #46:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-santa-anita-stop-racing-20190529-story.html

Consider this public statement: “The fact that horses running in America are five times more likely to suffer a catastrophic injury than horses running at international venues is unacceptable and must immediately change.” Think that’s from an animal welfare group? No, it’s from the Stronach Group, which owns Santa Anita Park. It’s on the group’s website.



-jp

.

[PaceAdvantage]

For those who think horse racing is going the way of dog racing, don't bet on it.

There is way too much money involved. Dog racing doesn't generate even a tenth of the handle horse racing generates annually in the USA, and with Florida leaving the picture, fahgettaboudit.

Never mind breeding and sales, the number of people employed by the sport, etc. etc. etc.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. That kind of money doesn't go quietly into the night. There are a lot of rich and powerful people involved in the sport of horse racing. And rich and powerful people often get their way.

That's not to say horse racing doesn't need to absolutely 100% clean up its act, and fast. It does.

[The_Turf_Monster]

PA, the way this is going to go is that there will be a ballot initiative in California to ban it, it will pass. At that point we will see decoupling of racinos as the operators will get rid of the racing business via political pressure through the inevitable breakdowns. From there we are left with maybe New York, kentucky, some of Florida, Maryland, Texas, Louisiana and Illinois running on fumes. This is all happening in rapid speed as horse racing has its own internal disagreements preventing change. This will hit the auctions very soon and from there it's a downward spiral. All because SA refused to stop running

[dilanesp]

For those who think horse racing is going the way of dog racing, don't bet on it.

There is way too much money involved. Dog racing doesn't generate even a tenth of the handle horse racing generates annually in the USA, and with Florida leaving the picture, fahgettaboudit.

Never mind breeding and sales, the number of people employed by the sport, etc. etc. etc.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. That kind of money doesn't go quietly into the night. There are a lot of rich and powerful people involved in the sport of horse racing. And rich and powerful people often get their way.

That's not to say horse racing doesn't need to absolutely 100% clean up its act, and fast. It does.

Dog racing was probably more important to Florida's economy than horse racing is to California's, and the voters there dumped it anyway.

There are a handful of rich Californians involved in horse racing. Nothing like the past. As a kid I used to see movie stars at the track all the time. I never do anymore- the biggest name I have seen recently was the singer Jewel, who was waiting along with me at the Valet pick-up at Del Mar.

California could totally kill horse racing. Nobody cares about it anymore. Other states are different.

[bob60566]

For those who think horse racing is going the way of dog racing, don't bet on it.

There is way too much money involved. Dog racing doesn't generate even a tenth of the handle horse racing generates annually in the USA, and with Florida leaving the picture, fahgettaboudit.

Never mind breeding and sales, the number of people employed by the sport, etc. etc. etc.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. That kind of money doesn't go quietly into the night. There are a lot of rich and powerful people involved in the sport of horse racing. And rich and powerful people often get their way.

That's not to say horse racing doesn't need to absolutely 100% clean up its act, and fast. It does.

That maybe the problem over the last two decades.

[elhelmete]

PA, the way this is going to go is that there will be a ballot initiative in California to ban it, it will pass. At that point we will see decoupling of racinos as the operators will get rid of the racing business via political pressure through the inevitable breakdowns. From there we are left with maybe New York, kentucky, some of Florida, Maryland, Texas, Louisiana and Illinois running on fumes. This is all happening in rapid speed as horse racing has its own internal disagreements preventing change. This will hit the auctions very soon and from there it's a downward spiral. All because SA refused to stop running

name a Calif. racino please.

[GMB@BP]

Dog racing was probably more important to Florida's economy than horse racing is to California's, and the voters there dumped it anyway.

As a kid I used to see movie stars at the track all the time. I never do anymore-


I call bullshit on that one. If a no one like me can hang around a well know racing people and meet Hollywood types than there is a lot more than you are giving credit for.

[elhelmete]

When AQU had two very notable spikes in deaths, and adjustments were made (successfully IMHO), where was that frothy outrage?

[FenceBored]

Using an anomalie isn't going to rationalize it. You've got an owner/trainer (same person) maximizing what he can out of a horse that ran down the class ladder over 7 seasons to get every last dollar out of it. This is the red meat that activists are going to get ahold of and use to publicize their cause. Racing needs to stop giving this to them

That's not an anomaly. That's the point.

12 starts a year isn't some crazy number even today. Averaging four weeks between starts isn't horse abuse. There are 4,859 horses who've made 6 starts already this year in North America. That's 14.8% of the North American starters, more than 1/8th of the horses have run as much as Kochees did this year.

[bob60566]

This is from few years ago.

https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2012-mar-24-la-me-horse-deaths-20120324-story.html

[Jeff P]

From the LA Times link that you posted:
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2012-mar-24-la-me-horse-deaths-20120324-story.html

Susan Stover, a professor of veterinary medicine at UC Davis who examines the broken bones of deceased California race horses, said that fatal injuries usually start as mild ones that went undetected.

"We need to be able to pick up those minor injuries," Stover said.

Imo, hard to believe the above quote is from seven years ago --

Prior to this season at Santa Anita, has there been any material emphasis on identifying at risk horses and keeping them off the track?



-jp

.

[lamboguy]

From the LA Times link that you posted:
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2012-mar-24-la-me-horse-deaths-20120324-story.html



Imo, hard to believe the above quote is from seven years ago --

Prior to this season at Santa Anita, has there been any material emphasis on identifying at risk horses and keeping them off the track?



-jp

.these injuries are probably broken tivia's. my unprofessional opinion is that the climate in California might have a big impact on all these injuries. i am saying that because the same injuries were happening when the surface in Hollywood Park was synthetic.

[Flashbackdiner]

Does anyone know what the greatest amount of jockey deaths in one year is? I remember late 90’s back to back years a jockey got killed on the New England fair circuit.The races didn’t miss a beat those summers. The more on track injuries these horses have bring a greater risk of serious and even death to the jockeys. It’s only a matter of time before their luck runs out. That will surely snowball the end of horse racing in the United States .

[HalvOnHorseracing]

A few years ago they banned dog racing in Iowa. I said we're next for exactly the reasons that have been offered on the thread. The biggest reason is there just aren't that many inveterate horse players left and we're not likely to be replaced by younger generations.

If you look at football, it leaves players crippled after their careers. There is a guy who played safety for Denver that comes to the golf course supported by two crutches. That's his life from now on. So many of them suffer CTE. Even Troy Aikman admits he's out of it sometimes. It's just that football players don't die on the field. And obviously they make their own decision to play juiced on toradol or some other painkiller. I've both separated and dislocated my shoulder. There is no way I could have possibly continued after those injuries. But there are players that do it and you know there are drugs involved. In baseball, the news might be that a player hurt his wrist but is using cortisone to play. No big deal at all. If you think it doesn't happen in all sports, you had to have been living in a cave. But as humans we can make our own decisions while horses are dependent on their trainers to decide how to keep them healthy, so we don't think about banning the collision sports.

People who play the races all the time don't trust the trainers, or the jockeys. The criticism is steady about both. In the movie, Once Upon a Time in the West, Henry Fonda decides to eliminate one of his very overweight confederates. The large man wears pants with both a belt and suspenders. Before the killing shot, Fonda says, how can I trust a man who doesn't trust his own pants. How can we bet when trainers are sending lame horses out or giving them some mysterious drug or both?

I think most of us know this. If there wasn't betting we wouldn't waste 10 minutes watching horses run around. Too many people are loyal to the money they dream of making. Now we're really being asked to support the industry we criticize. We're being asked to say despite the problems we have faith that we will solve all the problems. There is no dream without all the people who make the horses go.

If horse racing ends, maybe I'll bet Hong Kong or England or Japan. Or maybe I'll just ride off into the sunset.

[dilanesp]

I call bullshit on that one. If a no one like me can hang around a well know racing people and meet Hollywood types than there is a lot more than you are giving credit for.

A-listers? Because that's what you used to see at Santa Anita and Hollywood Park.

[Flashbackdiner]

A few years ago they banned dog racing in Iowa. I said we're next for exactly the reasons that have been offered on the thread. The biggest reason is there just aren't that many inveterate horse players left and we're not likely to be replaced by younger generations.

If you look at football, it leaves players crippled after their careers. There is a guy who played safety for Denver that comes to the golf course supported by two crutches. That's his life from now on. So many of them suffer CTE. Even Troy Aikman admits he's out of it sometimes. It's just that football players don't die on the field. And obviously they make their own decision to play juiced on toradol or some other painkiller. I've both separated and dislocated my shoulder. There is no way I could have possibly continued after those injuries. But there are players that do it and you know there are drugs involved. In baseball, the news might be that a player hurt his wrist but is using cortisone to play. No big deal at all. If you think it doesn't happen in all sports, you had to have been living in a cave. But as humans we can make our own decisions while horses are dependent on their trainers to decide how to keep them healthy, so we don't think about banning the collision sports.

People who play the races all the time don't trust the trainers, or the jockeys. The criticism is steady about both. In the movie, Once Upon a Time in the West, Henry Fonda decides to eliminate one of his very overweight confederates. The large man wears pants with both a belt and suspenders. Before the killing shot, Fonda says, how can I trust a man who doesn't trust his own pants. How can we bet when trainers are sending lame horses out or giving them some mysterious drug or both?

I think most of us know this. If there wasn't betting we wouldn't waste 10 minutes watching horses run around. Too many people are loyal to the money they dream of making. Now we're really being asked to support the industry we criticize. We're being asked to say despite the problems we have faith that we will solve all the problems. There is no dream without all the people who make the horses go.

If horse racing ends, maybe I'll bet Hong Kong or England or Japan. Or maybe I'll just ride off into the sunset.

But yet the handles continue to surge even while all the old time bettors are dying off. How/why is that? Maybe there are a lot of rogue online bettors that you will never see at the track. The money is coming from somewhere that is for sure.

[cutchemist42]

For those who think horse racing is going the way of dog racing, don't bet on it.

There is way too much money involved. Dog racing doesn't generate even a tenth of the handle horse racing generates annually in the USA, and with Florida leaving the picture, fahgettaboudit.

Never mind breeding and sales, the number of people employed by the sport, etc. etc. etc.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. That kind of money doesn't go quietly into the night. There are a lot of rich and powerful people involved in the sport of horse racing. And rich and powerful people often get their way.

That's not to say horse racing doesn't need to absolutely 100% clean up its act, and fast. It does.

You really do think it would survive a ballot question? In a state like California?

Continuing an activity simply because it employs people doesn't work in this day and age or else we'd still be clinging to coal like our life depended on it.

Humans have moved on from institutions even if it did have economic consequences.

[taxicab]

Every time I read the "they have an agenda" rebuttal, I have to point out that these exact criticisms of horse racing have been raised here many, many times over the years. But now that horse breakdowns are being noticed outside of the racing "bubble", everyone is becoming defensive. It's a shame the industry didn't spend the last 30 years becoming active and addressing these issues instead of ignoring everything. Yes, some tracks and individuals have taken action, but this is just horse racing's "cover it up and hope it all blows over" tactics coming back to haunt it.

Correct.
"Cover it up and hope it all blows over".
Correct +1.
There are three groups who fit what you've described.
The Stronach Group.
The Horsemen.
The California Horse Racing Board.
And even though everybody on this board.......and in the real world can read the room properly.........the three above mentioned groups are incapable...........they are without a doubt the most unaware bunch to ever walk the face of the earth.
They truly think they're sh** doesn't smell.
And I don't have to tell anybody on this board how it's going to play out down the road.

[cutchemist42]

A few years ago they banned dog racing in Iowa. I said we're next for exactly the reasons that have been offered on the thread. The biggest reason is there just aren't that many inveterate horse players left and we're not likely to be replaced by younger generations.

If you look at football, it leaves players crippled after their careers. There is a guy who played safety for Denver that comes to the golf course supported by two crutches. That's his life from now on. So many of them suffer CTE. Even Troy Aikman admits he's out of it sometimes. It's just that football players don't die on the field. And obviously they make their own decision to play juiced on toradol or some other painkiller. I've both separated and dislocated my shoulder. There is no way I could have possibly continued after those injuries. But there are players that do it and you know there are drugs involved. In baseball, the news might be that a player hurt his wrist but is using cortisone to play. No big deal at all. If you think it doesn't happen in all sports, you had to have been living in a cave. But as humans we can make our own decisions while horses are dependent on their trainers to decide how to keep them healthy, so we don't think about banning the collision sports.

People who play the races all the time don't trust the trainers, or the jockeys. The criticism is steady about both. In the movie, Once Upon a Time in the West, Henry Fonda decides to eliminate one of his very overweight confederates. The large man wears pants with both a belt and suspenders. Before the killing shot, Fonda says, how can I trust a man who doesn't trust his own pants. How can we bet when trainers are sending lame horses out or giving them some mysterious drug or both?

I think most of us know this. If there wasn't betting we wouldn't waste 10 minutes watching horses run around. Too many people are loyal to the money they dream of making. Now we're really being asked to support the industry we criticize. We're being asked to say despite the problems we have faith that we will solve all the problems. There is no dream without all the people who make the horses go.

If horse racing ends, maybe I'll bet Hong Kong or England or Japan. Or maybe I'll just ride off into the sunset.

I'll be honest, I'm a 33 year old that actually can watch a race very easily with no bet on it. A trainer on another forum has taught me a lot about trip handicapping that I can actually appreciate the race for what it is. It helps that I'm into other raced/timed sports like luge/F1/various sports and touring car series.

In some parts of the world that have high takeouts, people actually still watch it as a sport.

I just don't buy that the packed grandstands in the 20s was simply because every poor person in America was laying down $40/race.

[horsefan2019]

For those who think horse racing is going the way of dog racing, don't bet on it.

There is way too much money involved. Dog racing doesn't generate even a tenth of the handle horse racing generates annually in the USA, and with Florida leaving the picture, fahgettaboudit.

Never mind breeding and sales, the number of people employed by the sport, etc. etc. etc.

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. That kind of money doesn't go quietly into the night. There are a lot of rich and powerful people involved in the sport of horse racing. And rich and powerful people often get their way.

That's not to say horse racing doesn't need to absolutely 100% clean up its act, and fast. It does.

Yep, and I can also see that since certain political figures are taking the fight against horse racing, it will take a political stance....which will end up getting deadlocked the way this country is right now. I do think the industry will have to begrudgingly adopt more stringent drug policies to say to the people who don't really pay attention to the sport that they are doing something proactive to prevent deaths of horses. As far as horse racing is concerned, I don't see it going away, there are several states like Kentucky that have much bigger incomes from the industry that will fight like hell to keep it around. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, the sport isn't going away.

[horsefan2019]

But yet the handles continue to surge even while all the old time bettors are dying off. How/why is that? Maybe there are a lot of rogue online bettors that you will never see at the track. The money is coming from somewhere that is for sure.

Yep, I've gone to Santa Anita lately, and even though the crowds are down, the handle is still pretty steady. That means most of the money is coming in from out of state and even from out of the country thanks to betting via satellite TV and the internet.

[elhelmete]

Yep, I've gone to Santa Anita lately, and even though the crowds are down, the handle is still pretty steady. That means most of the money is coming in from out of state and even from out of the country thanks to betting via satellite TV and the internet.

Why not in-state but not on-track?

[PaceAdvantage]

Dog racing was probably more important to Florida's economy than horse racing is to California's, and the voters there dumped it anyway.Actually, it wasn't. Not in the last 10 years or so. Handle had been dropping off precipitously in the last 10+ years...there wasn't going to be much revenue lost to the state by getting rid of dog racing.

Follow the money. It always wins.

[PaceAdvantage]

You really do think it would survive a ballot question? In a state like California?

Continuing an activity simply because it employs people doesn't work in this day and age or else we'd still be clinging to coal like our life depended on it.

Humans have moved on from institutions even if it did have economic consequences.I listed a whole bunch of other reasons in addition to employment.

It's all about the benjamins. And the people involved in the sport who have a LOT of benjamins...and a lot of influential friends in politics.

I remain unconvinced that racing is in danger of disappearing in California or anywhere else.

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem." Not "eliminate racing." That kind of talk is coming from wackadoodle extremists who nobody pays serious attention to in the first place.

[dilanesp]

I listed a whole bunch of other reasons in addition to employment.

It's all about the benjamins. And the people involved in the sport who have a LOT of benjamins...and a lot of influential friends in politics.

I remain unconvinced that racing is in danger of disappearing in California or anywhere else.

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem." Not "eliminate racing." That kind of talk is coming from wackadoodle extremists who nobody pays serious attention to in the first place.

I live here, talk to plenty of people, and 30 years ago my love of horse racing was treated as interesting and fun. It is now generally treated as "how can you support something so brutal?". Including by plenty of the sort of rich folks you imagine support the sport.

If it goes on the ballot, I am 95 percent certain a ban would pass. California is not Kentucky and this isn't the pasttime of either the billionaires of Silicon Valley or the beautiful people of Hollywood.

[PaceAdvantage]

I live here, talk to plenty of people, and 30 years ago my love of horse racing was treated as interesting and fun. It is now generally treated as "how can you support something so brutal?". Including by plenty of the sort of rich folks you imagine support the sport.

If it goes on the ballot, I am 95 percent certain a ban would pass. California is not Kentucky and this isn't the pasttime of either the billionaires of Silicon Valley or the beautiful people of Hollywood.I imagine? OK then.

How about the rich folks who ACTUALLY support the sport. You talk to any of them? Or have I imagined it all, and there are actually ZERO powerful supporters of horse racing?

Help me with all my imagining please, oh oracle of all things SoCal racing.

[bob60566]

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem.(qUOTE)

Why has it taken decades to fix the serious decline in horse racing.And they all have been discussed on this site in the last ten years.

Do not rock the boat were all still making money and giving away free tee shirts at the corgi races.

[Tom]

PETA has a serious misunderstanding that animal welfare is the same thing as animal rights. Not at all.

They are politically motivated do-gooders who need to feel good by being superior to everyone else.

Why are we worrying about SA racetrack? Why do we need California racing at all? Across the country, we see 4-5 horse fields daily. And a new track just opened over the weekend, - one that relies on a STOPWATCH to time races! :lol::lol::lol::mad::(

If we, as players, want to change anything, we need to target track to starve by not betting them, tracks like SA, GP, Arizona Whatever, and others who are not putting not a reliable product, but we never will.

Racing is not run by the brightest or the best, not even close. Many of their problems are self-inflicted at worst, just ignored at best.

Feinstein has her eye on a new problem to solve and it won't be long before others join her. I think federal regulation, because betting crosses state lines, is in the future, and not too far into it.
Racing has brought it on itself.

[alydar]

I would be very surprised if horse racing was banned in CA or any state. However, we should be realistic about the sport's economic impact and money interests. The actual amount of tax revenue that the state gains from racing is minimal, and as racing has declined in the state so has its economic significance. Let's face it, the land that Santa Anita and Del Mar occupies is extremely valuable and probably could be used for projects that potentially could have a much more significant economic impact on the state. The horse racing interest in the state may be powerful, but have much less influence now than in past years. Times are changing as we know and racing has not quick to respond, as we also know all too well.

[dilanesp]

I imagine? OK then.

How about the rich folks who ACTUALLY support the sport. You talk to any of them? Or have I imagined it all, and there are actually ZERO powerful supporters of horse racing?

Help me with all my imagining please, oh oracle of all things SoCal racing.

There aren't zero. But the ones that exist have less power than you think.

[classhandicapper]

I would be very surprised if horse racing was banned in CA or any state. However, we should be realistic about the sport's economic impact and money interests. The actual amount of tax revenue that the state gains from racing is minimal, and as racing has declined in the state so has its economic significance. Let's face it, the land that Santa Anita and Del Mar occupies is extremely valuable and probably could be used for projects that potentially could have a much more significant economic impact on the state. The horse racing interest in the state may be powerful, but have much less influence now than in past years. Times are changing as we know and racing has not quick to respond, as we also know all too well.

This hits the nail on the head.

That's one of many reasons why I'm a big proponent of consolidation. If there were fewer tracks, more of the overall handle pie would go to each of the remaining tracks. They would become more profitable as a result. Then they could justify their existence based on the economics. Now, every politician and developer is looking at the land and thinking about all the things that could done there that would generate more money for the state.

[castaway01]

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem.(qUOTE)

Why has it taken decades to fix the serious decline in horse racing.And they all have been discussed on this site in the last ten years.

Do not rock the boat were all still making money and giving away free tee shirts at the corgi races.

To be fair, while racing has done plenty of "don't rock the boat and let's collect that slot money", I think most people in the industry would like to solve the breakdown issue. There's some "these horses were bred to run and wouldn't exist without racing, plus there have always been breakdowns" (both of which are 100% accurate, just no longer sufficient as explanations to the general public) but it's more that there is no "snap your fingers" solution to the breakdown issue. Causes include unsound horses running when they shouldn't, the weakening of the breed in general, sometimes the track condition, and other factors all mixed together.

[dilanesp]

This hits the nail on the head.

That's one of many reasons why I'm a big proponent of consolidation. If there were fewer tracks, more of the overall handle pie would go to each of the remaining tracks. They would become more profitable as a result. Then they could justify their existence based on the economics. Now, every politician and developer is looking at the land and thinking about all the things that could done there that would generate more money for the state.

As long as Churchill exists and operates as a racetrack, the sport will survive in America. It doesn't need California, although we help.

Part of what is going on here is that people don't realize the power of the initiative process. Of course few politicians are going to support the destruction of ANY job creating enterprise in any state. But voters don't particularly care about arguments of the economic benefit of a sport, if they perceive an animal welfare problem. If the voters really want to kill the sport, it really wouldn't matter if the sport had tens of thousands of powerful patrons (and it really doesn't anymore in California). What matters is very few voters go to the track anymore.

[bob60566]

To be fair, while racing has done plenty of "don't rock the boat and let's collect that slot money", I think most people in the industry would like to solve the breakdown issue. There's some "these horses were bred to run and wouldn't exist without racing, plus there have always been breakdowns" (both of which are 100% accurate, just no longer sufficient as explanations to the general public) but it's more that there is no "snap your fingers" solution to the breakdown issue. Causes include unsound horses running when they shouldn't, the weakening of the breed in general, sometimes the track condition, and other factors all mixed together.

Can someone explain why these issues cannot be resolved, Or do we get the stakeholders involved as is the norm and form a committee to solve decade old concerns.

[AndyC]

I listed a whole bunch of other reasons in addition to employment.

It's all about the benjamins. And the people involved in the sport who have a LOT of benjamins...and a lot of influential friends in politics.

I remain unconvinced that racing is in danger of disappearing in California or anywhere else.

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem." Not "eliminate racing." That kind of talk is coming from wackadoodle extremists who nobody pays serious attention to in the first place.

Having lived in CA for over 50 years I will say that it is near impossible to predict the actions taken by this state based upon the actions of the other 49 states. Rational arguments are met with emotional outcries and disregarded altogether.

[dilanesp]

Having lived in CA for over 50 years I will say that it is near impossible to predict the actions taken by this state based upon the actions of the other 49 states. Rational arguments are met with emotional outcries and disregarded altogether.

Yep. Our intiative process is highly unpredictable and can swing way left or way right, depending on the issue.

[classhandicapper]

Does racing even need California?

If Baffert, O'Neil, Sadler, Hollendorfer, Mandella etc... moved their horses to OP, CD, and BEL, there would be clear downsides for people in the industry in CA, but it might actually be a net positive on the quality of racing overall.

[horsefan2019]

Why not in-state but not on-track?

You can include in-state OTB's as well, but the point is people no longer have to go to the track to bet on races.

[bob60566]

Does racing even need California?

If Baffert, O'Neil, Sadler, Hollendorfer, Mandella etc... moved their horses to OP, CD, and BEL, there would be clear downsides for people in the industry in CA, but it might actually be a net positive on the quality of racing overall.

If four out of the five did that John would be laughing all the way to the bank year round.

[Tom]

Does racing even need California?

No.

Nor NY, nor Florida. Nor.....
NO track or circuit is irreplaceable, although many think they are.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'll be honest, I'm a 33 year old that actually can watch a race very easily with no bet on it. A trainer on another forum has taught me a lot about trip handicapping that I can actually appreciate the race for what it is. It helps that I'm into other raced/timed sports like luge/F1/various sports and touring car series.

In some parts of the world that have high takeouts, people actually still watch it as a sport.

I just don't buy that the packed grandstands in the 20s was simply because every poor person in America was laying down $40/race.

I think you missed the point. It isn't the beauty and athleticism alone that brings people to the track. Sitting through a race you could have bet is not nearly the same thing as sitting through a race where betting was not allowed. Trust me. Attendance would fall drastically.

Yes, millions of people watch the races that more millions of people bet on. I watch the Epsom Derby and the Irish Derby with no money, but I've been a loyal fan for longer than you've been alive.

I didn't reference the 20's, but since you brought it up, three sports dominated: horseracing, baseball and boxing. You know why the stands were filled? Because there wasn't TV to watch or ADW's where you could bet. Football was in its infancy, and was for the most part uncontrolled. Basketball was at least as far behind. Six teams comprised the NHL. You had to go to the track to make money.

I'm sure you also realize this. The minimum $2 bet represented a significant amount to the people making $50 a week. But the lure of making money was hard to resist.

[dilanesp]

Does racing even need California?

If Baffert, O'Neil, Sadler, Hollendorfer, Mandella etc... moved their horses to OP, CD, and BEL, there would be clear downsides for people in the industry in CA, but it might actually be a net positive on the quality of racing overall.

In a strict sense, no. In fact, it's possible the sport is better off with no California than with the current situation here, at least in Southern California. (The tapeta surface at GGF does no harm at all to the sport.)

On the other hand, the sport would be much better off if we could somehow recapture the contribution California made 30 or even 25 years ago.

The problem is, I don't think that's possible. The public no longer cares about racing and can easily be roused against it. Despite what PA says, the people with real power in California politics don't give a hoot about it. And our horsemen are absolutely beyond the pale-- they LIKE a system where they can run doped up horses in 6 horse fields year round. (In their partial defense, the costs here are higher than anywhere else and we don't have nearly as many rich people who are willing to blow their money on the sport the way we used to. So they have to get by as best they can.)

To actually fix racing in California, you would need the public to care about fixing racing, instead of just being pissed off about breakdowns. And that just isn't where we are right now.

[PaceAdvantage]

The public no longer cares about racing and can easily be roused against it. Despite what PA says, the people with real power in California politics don't give a hoot about it.WHAT? That's EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE. What do you mean despite?!?!?!?!?

[FenceBored]

To actually fix racing in California, you would need the public to care about fixing racing, instead of just being pissed off about breakdowns. And that just isn't where we are right now.


To fix races it's better not to get the public involved.

[Jeff P]

Earlier today at Belterra Park, the 3-2 favorite, #5 Beu Dan broke down in the upper stretch during the running of race 4.

The track announcer described it as "unseating the rider."

A few minutes later, the announcer cut back in to let everyone know that Deshawn Parker was ok and that he was now walking back to the jock's room under his own power.

A few minutes after that, when the replay was shown, the video had been edited. The part of the race where the breakdown took place had been removed from the footage.

Less than 90 minutes later, at Gulfstream Park in race 5, the #1 horse Dempsey broke down on the far turn.

Gulfstream's track announcer described it as "being eased."

When the replay was shown, once again, the video had been altered. The part of the race where the breakdown took place? Once again, removed from the replay.

Please understand my intent here isn't to throw stones at track announcers and video crews.

They're just doing their jobs - following procedure.

Sadly, the procedure itself has been repeated so many times over the years that we've gotten to the point where it is simply the norm.

What do we do when a breakdown occurs?

As an industry we attempt to whitewash it away.

Our track announcers downplay it in their race calls.

Our track video crews remove all traces of it from the video footage.

As an industry we pretend it doesn't happen, hope no one really notices, and move on to the next race.

In my opinion there's a downside to that.

You see we've actually gotten good at downplaying it.

We've been downplaying it and sweeping it under the rug for so long that I think we've succeeded at making ourselves numb to it.

Being numb to a wrong (any wrong) has unintended consequences.

As human beings, if we don't really feel a wrong: We are seldom motivated to do anything about it.

The events I described above aren't unique. They take place at every race track and with (Imo, alarming) regularity.

I play a lot of races, and I generally play at least five days a week.

It seems like I see at least one breakdown (at some track somewhere) almost every single race day.

After witnessing not one but two breakdowns within 90 minutes of each other today:

It hit me that if I can become as numb to this kind of wrong as I have - and make no mistake it is a wrong - then maybe we as an industry have become a little too good at sweeping our breakdown problem under the rug.

Maybe we shouldn't be striving so hard to do that.

What if we started allowing our track announcers to be more like other sports announcers? What if we actually let them describe all of the events surrounding a race, including breakdowns, 100 percent in their own words?

What if we started allowing our track video crews to be more like other sports video crews? I'm certainly not saying the camera should zoom in and linger on a fallen horse. But I am asking: What if instead of making such an effort to scrub all traces of negative events from our track video, we simply let the camera show exactly what happened, including breakdowns, during the running of each and every race?

I know one thing that would result:

Our sport would get some (Imo, badly needed) transparency.

I know another thing that would result:

We'd feel each breakdown a little more.

Maybe we'd feel them a lot more.

Who knows? If we as an industry felt them strongly enough:

We might even be motivated enough to invent better ways of lessening the likelihood of breakdowns in the first place - as opposed to sweeping every damn one of them under the rug.



-jp

.

[fast4522]

No.

Nor NY, nor Florida. Nor.....
NO track or circuit is irreplaceable, although many think they are.

I think it would be more preferable to take away Dianne Feinstein's Lasix.

[BCOURTNEY]

Why not just amputate the California infection and all that goes with it from racing altogether, is it really that hard to imagine a life in racing after California and TSG? It sounds like a smoother path and much easier to navigate than the involvement, the ivory tower and feed them cake routine.

[bob60566]

Maybe this is all playing into Frankie and Belinda long term plan,And i do not think for one minute if they do like the ways things are going in more ways than one. Del Mar and Golden Gate will hold the fort. and everyone is happy.

[the little guy]

Maybe this is all playing into Frankie and Belinda long term plan,And i do not think for one minute if they do like the ways things are going in more ways than one. Del Mar and Golden Gate will hold the fort. and everyone is happy.

I'm confused. How much more information needs to be given before people stop lumping Frank Stronach into anything happening at TSG? He hasn't been involved in decision making for some time.

I'm not taking sides, or offering an opinion, just some facts as there seems to be some constant confusion.

[bob60566]

Intresting new article

Nicola Speranta, an Arcadia realtor, describes the racetrack’s location as real estate “gold.” She adds that were it ever to be converted into a housing/commercial development, the value would be “in the billions.” (Stronach paid US$126 million for the property in 1998).

Maybe she does not like Frankie new plan for San Anita

https://www.thewesternstar.com/business/imperfectly-frank-stronach-still-chasing-his-dreams-amid-legal-feud-with-daughter-belinda-316871/

[dilanesp]

Intresting new article

Nicola Speranta, an Arcadia realtor, describes the racetrack’s location as real estate “gold.” She adds that were it ever to be converted into a housing/commercial development, the value would be “in the billions.” (Stronach paid US$126 million for the property in 1998).

Maybe she does not like Frankie new plan for San Anita

https://www.thewesternstar.com/business/imperfectly-frank-stronach-still-chasing-his-dreams-amid-legal-feud-with-daughter-belinda-316871/

This has been known for years. Indeed, for a long time it was assumed that HOL would stay open and SA would close, because SA was so much more valuable to develop.

The fact SA hasn't closed disproves conspiracy theories about the Stronachs. They like racing.

[elhelmete]

I'm confused. How much more information needs to be given before people stop lumping Frank Stronach into anything happening at TSG? He hasn't been involved in decision making for some time.

I'm not taking sides, or offering an opinion, just some facts as there seems to be some constant confusion.

When have facts ever mattered to the frothy masses here?

[the little guy]

When have facts ever mattered to the frothy masses here?

True. I just can't help myself ( sometimes ).

[MNslappy]

What if we started allowing our track video crews to be more like other sports video crews? I'm certainly not saying the camera should zoom in and linger on a fallen horse. But I am asking: What if instead of making such an effort to scrub all traces of negative events from our track video, we simply let the camera show exactly what happened, including breakdowns, during the running of each and every race?

I know one thing that would result:

Our sport would get some (Imo, badly needed) transparency.

I know another thing that would result:

We'd feel each breakdown a little more.

Maybe we'd feel them a lot more.

Who knows? If we as an industry felt them strongly enough:

We might even be motivated enough to invent better ways of lessening the likelihood of breakdowns in the first place - as opposed to sweeping every damn one of them under the rug.



-jp

.

great post Jeff

[horsefan2019]

This has been known for years. Indeed, for a long time it was assumed that HOL would stay open and SA would close, because SA was so much more valuable to develop.

The fact SA hasn't closed disproves conspiracy theories about the Stronachs. They like racing.

I heard the opposite, and I live in the area. Hollywood Park was desirable because it could be used to develop as a new stadium for the Raiders going back in the early 90's. Santa Anita even though its in a much more desirable area is already next to a mall, so its much harder justifying building another mall or commercial properties next to it.

[FenceBored]

The events I described above aren't unique. They take place at every race track and with (Imo, alarming) regularity.

I play a lot of races, and I generally play at least five days a week.

It seems like I see at least one breakdown (at some track somewhere) almost every single race day.

After witnessing not one but two breakdowns within 90 minutes of each other today:

It hit me that if I can become as numb to this kind of wrong as I have - and make no mistake it is a wrong - then maybe we as an industry have become a little too good at sweeping our breakdown problem under the rug.



Even when we start having the information we don't always think through the consequences of what it means. Take the Equine Injury Database figures of 493 horses sustaining fatal injuries in a race last year from 293,555 individual starts. That means 1.35 every day for 365 days. But nobody runs every day, with a lot of tracks concentrated on the four day Thursday-Sunday schedule now.



For the sake of argument, let's say that all racing were taking place on the same days and we had 220 race days (4 days a week plus 12 extras for holidays), that would be 1334.34 starters and 2.24 fatalities at EID reporting tracks (one death for every 595.45 starters which is what the EID rate of 1.68 translates to).


That's what we would have known if we stopped to think about it. So, do at least two horses die every Thursday through Sunday at some race track in North America from a race injury? Yeah, we have to say that they do.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have a question or two.

The much-vaunted European racing model...you know, the one where breakdowns appear with less regularity than Halley's Comet.

How accurate are those breakdown statistics? Who is keeping track of them over there? What is the method involved? For that matter, how accurate are the stats for breakdowns in the USA? After all, one of the criticisms appears to be that few jurisdictions even keep such statistics. I take it many/most of these breakdowns are gleaned from result charts?

Maybe the problem in the USA is even worse than suspected? Maybe breakdowns in Europe happen more often than we are led to believe?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I have a question or two.

The much-vaunted European racing model...you know, the one where breakdowns appear with less regularity than Halley's Comet.

How accurate are those breakdown statistics? Who is keeping track of them over there? What is the method involved? For that matter, how accurate are the stats for breakdowns in the USA? After all, one of the criticisms appears to be that few jurisdictions even keep such statistics. I take it many/most of these breakdowns are gleaned from result charts?

Maybe the problem in the USA is even worse than suspected? Maybe breakdowns in Europe happen more often than we are led to believe?

I think the biggest difference in Europe is the percentage of races run on the grass, with a slow pace early and a 3-furlong sprint to the wire. One advantage of grass is that the horses' feet don't slide in the same way they do on the dirt. Rain doesn't see to stop horses from running on the turf in Europe, both because of the design of the course and the superior drainage system.

I know that every time I watch a jump race horses go down and jockeys fly through the air. I don't know if those races are part of the statistics on racetrack deaths in Europe.

I don't know how many horses running at Saratoga go down on the grass, but I'd bet it's a lower number than the dirt. Perhaps more turf races would help us out.

One statistic to create some perspective. About 0.5% of starters break down. It's not meant to say that is acceptable. It's just the number we're talking about.

[Jeff P]

Back in the 2006-2009 timeframe when I was still using Brisnet data, I made an effort to look at this because I wanted to know if there was any basis to the claims about synthetic surfaces being safer.

Brisnet used to (likely still does) use a "92" for finish position in their .XRD result files to indicate that a horse failed to finish a race.

Based on that, I was able to get really close to breakdown rates for each of the three surfaces we race on - synthetics, turf, and dirt.

Doing this from memory because I don't have immediate access to my old Brisnet data, but I recall the numbers breaking out as follows:

Failed to finish a race (approx) per each 1000 starts:

1.20 -- synthetic
1.40 -- turf
1.60 -- dirt

Overall, I recall there being a 1 in 670 (approx) chance of a horse failing to finish a race after breaking from the gate and being made an official starter by the stewards.

Keep in mind the above numbers include horses that failed to finish a race for any reason... lost rider, clipped heels, saddle slipped, etc., as well as breakdowns.

Also keep in mind that not all breakdowns result in fatalities.

All of that said, the above numbers (in aggregate) aren't that far from the more recent fatality rates being reported from the Equine Injury Database.

As for overseas numbers? Can't say. (Wish I had the data.)


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Wikipedia - Motorcycle safety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety

Accident rates and risks
Travelling on a motorcycle carries a much higher risk of death or injury than driving the same distance in a car. In 2006 US motorcyclists had a risk of a fatal crash that was 35 times greater than that of passenger cars, based on 390 motorcyclist deaths per billion vehicles miles and 11.1 car fatalities for that distance.[2] In 2016 this rate was 28 times that for automobiles.[3]

What happens if we restate 390 motorcyclist deaths per billion vehicles miles the same way racing fatalities are stated?

Doing the math --
0.00000039 = (390)/(1,000,000,000)

or

0.00039 motorcyclist deaths per each 1000 miles traveled.

Compare that to 1.5 (approx) horse fatalities per each 1000 race distances (5f to 10f approx) traveled.


Doing some more math --

(1.5 horse deaths)/(0.00039 motorcycle deaths) = 3846.15

If I've done that at all correctly, and somebody please jump in and correct me if I haven't --

That would mean a horse is approximately 3800 times more likely to die while running a race than a motorcyclist is while driving one mile.

And I thought motorcycles were dangerous? :rolleyes:



-jp

.

[dilanesp]

I heard the opposite, and I live in the area. Hollywood Park was desirable because it could be used to develop as a new stadium for the Raiders going back in the early 90's. Santa Anita even though its in a much more desirable area is already next to a mall, so its much harder justifying building another mall or commercial properties next to it.

Go back to the 1990's when Hollywood was making a profit for RD Hubbard, and you will find extensive speculation about a closure of SA.

It flipped later.

[BCOURTNEY]

Even when we start having the information we don't always think through the consequences of what it means. Take the Equine Injury Database figures of 493 horses sustaining fatal injuries in a race last year from 293,555 individual starts. That means 1.35 every day for 365 days. But nobody runs every day, with a lot of tracks concentrated on the four day Thursday-Sunday schedule now.



For the sake of argument, let's say that all racing were taking place on the same days and we had 220 race days (4 days a week plus 12 extras for holidays), that would be 1334.34 starters and 2.24 fatalities at EID reporting tracks (one death for every 595.45 starters which is what the EID rate of 1.68 translates to).


That's what we would have known if we stopped to think about it. So, do at least two horses die every Thursday through Sunday at some race track in North America from a race injury? Yeah, we have to say that they do.

What would be good is making the equine injury database available for public use and research, crowd sourcing works out hard problems all the time. There is a lot of free horsepower in the public space to look at the issues in new ways.

[FenceBored]

I have a question or two.

The much-vaunted European racing model...you know, the one where breakdowns appear with less regularity than Halley's Comet.

How accurate are those breakdown statistics? Who is keeping track of them over there? What is the method involved? For that matter, how accurate are the stats for breakdowns in the USA? After all, one of the criticisms appears to be that few jurisdictions even keep such statistics. I take it many/most of these breakdowns are gleaned from result charts?

Maybe the problem in the USA is even worse than suspected? Maybe breakdowns in Europe happen more often than we are led to believe?


According to Equibase (via the Jockey Club) there were 303,014 starts made in North America in 2018. The figure from the Jockey Club's EID is 293,555. It doesn't look like there's aton of unreported races. I don't see Oaklawn on the list of those who report their info to the EID program, but what other sizable track is missing outside of Puerto Rico (whom I assume is in the North American wide stats)?



http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=Advocacy&area=11


Now, not all of them publicly release the limited data that the EID does release, but that doesn't mean they're not included in the overall figures.

[airford1]

Dont ever let Peta know what the %of horses that are bred for racing and never make it to the starting gate.

[FenceBored]

What would be good is making the equine injury database available for public use and research, crowd sourcing works out hard problems all the time. There is a lot of free horsepower in the public space to look at the issues in new ways.


I can understand them not wanting to hand all the raw data to their enemies in the animal rights movement, but in these last ten years I would have hoped they'd make a more concerted effort than they seem to have to mine the data for specific ways to improve things.

[FenceBored]

According to Equibase (via the Jockey Club) there were 303,014 starts made in North America in 2018. The figure from the Jockey Club's EID is 293,555. It doesn't look like there's aton of unreported races. I don't see Oaklawn on the list of those who report their info to the EID program, but what other sizable track is missing outside of Puerto Rico (whom I assume is in the North American wide stats)?



That 303,014 figure is continental US and Canada only, no Puerto Rico. Subtract the Oaklawn figure and there's 4796 starts for the year that I'm guessing is the combination of some smaller tracks.

[dilanesp]

I can understand them not wanting to hand all the raw data to their enemies in the animal rights movement, but in these last ten years I would have hoped they'd make a more concerted effort than they seem to have to mine the data for specific ways to improve things.

The reality is that when the spotlight is on you, very little can be gained by attempting to bury data. It just gets journalists on your case even more than they already are (and of course, opponents like PETA will always say what they want to say whether they have data or not).

Horse racing's response to this crisis hasn't been ALL bad. Belinda Stronach tried to implement some sensible rules in response to it. And I think the move a decade ago to go to synthetic tracks was a good one (unfortunately too many stakeholders objected and they got pulled out of several big tracks).

But in general, there's way too much "we'd just be fine if we ride this out until the public stops paying attention" or "the only reason they are mad at us is because they don't understand all the specifics like we do". And while my training is in law, not crisis management, I have worked in some crisis situations and neither of those approaches ever worked. You have to just get in front of the problem and hope it works.

[rastajenk]

What if you invest a ton of resources into studies, data, opinions, and anything else you might consider, and hope the adopted plans work,and still the breakdown rate and/or public opinion about racing in general doesn't improve?

Which seems entirely possible.

The thing that seems most certain is that there will be no shortage of people saying racing didn't do anything to get ahead of the problem and fix it good.

[dilanesp]

What if you invest a ton of resources into studies, data, opinions, and anything else you might consider, and hope the adopted plans work,and still the breakdown rate and/or public opinion about racing in general doesn't improve?

Which seems entirely possible.

The thing that seems most certain is that there will be no shortage of people saying racing didn't do anything to get ahead of the problem and fix it good.

You have to reduce the fatality rate. Part of that is luck, which you are implying.

But a lot of luck is actually the residue of design. We actually do know, ultimately, many of the reasons why horses break down on the track. And they come down to a couple of things:

1. Dirt tracks are less safe than turf and synthetics.
2. A substantial number of horses are racing when they are at risk of a breakdown.

And we know ways to change both 1 and 2. However, powerful elements of the sport don't want to see 1 or 2 changed.

Now you can change 1 and 2 and still get unlucky and then we get shut down. If that happens, we're screwed. But if you change 1 and 2, you increase your chances significantly that we don't get shut down.

[FenceBored]

The reality is that when the spotlight is on you, very little can be gained by attempting to bury data. It just gets journalists on your case even more than they already are (and of course, opponents like PETA will always say what they want to say whether they have data or not).

Horse racing's response to this crisis hasn't been ALL bad. Belinda Stronach tried to implement some sensible rules in response to it. And I think the move a decade ago to go to synthetic tracks was a good one (unfortunately too many stakeholders objected and they got pulled out of several big tracks).

But in general, there's way too much "we'd just be fine if we ride this out until the public stops paying attention" or "the only reason they are mad at us is because they don't understand all the specifics like we do". And while my training is in law, not crisis management, I have worked in some crisis situations and neither of those approaches ever worked. You have to just get in front of the problem and hope it works.


Yeah, well ... the EID was setup in response to Eight Belles (coming right after Barbaro and the SoCal spike in fatalities that led to the synthetics mandate). Ten years later they've collected the data, released a bare minimum for only those tracks that consent to it, and given us generalities. So you'd have to say that it bought them a decade to work. But what did they do with the time?

[classhandicapper]

Does anyone know if the breakdown rates are lower on dirt overseas than here?

[bob60566]

Yeah, well ... the EID was setup in response to Eight Belles (coming right after Barbaro and the SoCal spike in fatalities that led to the synthetics mandate). Ten years later they've collected the data, released a bare minimum for only those tracks that consent to it, and given us generalities. So you'd have to say that it bought them a decade to work. But what did they do with the time?

Excellent point

My reply is Nothing in the last decade

[thaskalos]

If the breakdowns were somehow reduced by, say, 50%...would that appease the anti-racing media and the general public...or are the breakdowns unacceptable to them at ANY level?

[dilanesp]

If the breakdowns were somehow reduced by, say, 50%...would that appease the anti-racing media and the general public...or are the breakdowns unacceptable to them at ANY level?

It's worth trying to find out.

[BCOURTNEY]

It's worth trying to find out.

It's like the difference between a reasonable doubt and beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[FenceBored]

If the breakdowns were somehow reduced by, say, 50%...would that appease the anti-racing media and the general public...or are the breakdowns unacceptable to them at ANY level?




The 1.68 per thousand figure from the EID last year is one fatality for every 595 starts. Wouldn't it be better to improve that figure regardless of whether it appeases the most vocal critics?

[Tom]

How is that figure derived?
Is it even reality?

Does it include horses who are vanned off and die or are put down days, weeks later, ie, was Barbaro included?

Uniformity in reporting - do all tracks do it the same?

Is that 1.68 really 2.13?

[FenceBored]

How is that figure derived?
Is it even reality?

Does it include horses who are vanned off and die or are put down days, weeks later, ie, was Barbaro included?

Uniformity in reporting - do all tracks do it the same?

Is that 1.68 really 2.13?


It includes every horse who dies within 72 hours of being in a race at most every track in the US (Oaklawn is the notable exception). Cases like Barbaro wouldn't be counted because he stayed alive for another 8 months. All tracks that report to the EID are supposed to be following the same guidelines. It wouldn't shock me to find that some are more faithful than others.

US traffic fatalities are everyone who dies of their injuries within 365 days. Somebody who lingers for 18 months or 10 years isn't be counted.

Why 72 hours? You've got to draw the line somewhere. If I were setting the figure I'd probably make it 30 or 60 days, not 3.

[bob60566]

If major racetracks make statement to increase major drug testing the likes never seen before starting August-1-2019, And advise it make take some time for this to show full potential going forward.
The lesser tracks would have six months to clean there act up.

Everyone would be very clear things are getting done to solve this situation.

[Redboard]

Wikipedia - Motorcycle safety:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety



What happens if we restate 390 motorcyclist deaths per billion vehicles miles the same way racing fatalities are stated?

Doing the math --
0.00000039 = (390)/(1,000,000,000)

or

0.00039 motorcyclist deaths per each 1000 miles traveled.

Compare that to 1.5 (approx) horse fatalities per each 1000 race distances (5f to 10f approx) traveled.


Doing some more math --

(1.5 horse deaths)/(0.00039 motorcycle deaths) = 3846.15

If I've done that at all correctly, and somebody please jump in and correct me if I haven't --

That would mean a horse is approximately 3800 times more likely to die while running a race than a motorcyclist is while driving one mile.

And I thought motorcycles were dangerous? :rolleyes:



-jp

.

Interesting comparison. One day I did the same thing for boxing. I found that boxing doesn’t readily release their statics either for the same reason that racing never did — bad publicity and fear of litigation. But after spending many hours digging out the information that I could, I concluded that the chances of a boxer dying in the ring is about 1 in 5000-6000. It’s scary to think that a horse has a much worse chance of surviving a race than a boxer does in surviving a fight, whose objective is to destroy the other contestant.

[Redboard]

I.....

I know that every time I watch a jump race horses go down and jockeys fly through the air. I don't know if those races are part of the statistics on racetrack deaths in Europe.......

There are no "statistics on racetrack deaths in Europe." The more I looked at Euro racing, the more I’m convinced that there are just as many rascals over there than there is here. Yea, they do run less dirt races, but more steeplechase races, where falling seems to be part of the show, and definitely have more breakdowns. My guess is that there’s are just as many per start over there as in North America. Until their industry publishes different, I won't believe otherwise.

[Redboard]

How is that figure derived?
Is it even reality?

Does it include horses who are vanned off and die or are put down days, weeks later, ie, was Barbaro included?

Uniformity in reporting - do all tracks do it the same?

Is that 1.68 really 2.13?

Could be. In March, after the SA incidents, the Jockey Club released a statement :

“Will we ever know the exact cause of spikes in horse fatalities? Unless there is change in the industry that answer is, sadly, probably not,” wrote The Jockey Club. “A key to this change is the requirement of full transparency into the medical treatment, injuries, and health of all racehorses. Today, we can’t fully see what is going on with a horse because of differing state and track practices, antiquated practices, and purposeful deceit about what drugs are given to horses at what times.”

So if these tracks are lying about their drug policies, can we trust anything they are telling us?

http://www.jockeyclub.com/Default.asp?section=Resources&area=10&story=1109

[FenceBored]

It includes every horse who dies within 72 hours of being in a race at most every track in the US (Oaklawn is the notable exception).


Correction: Dies of an injury sustained in a race. Does not include cardiac events like Congrats Gal in the Miss Preakness. I don't know if they have them in the database and exclude them from this report or if they don't ask for this info. Presumably the thinking is that it is completely unrelated to the safety of the track surface, which is what they're trying to gauge.

[ultracapper]

The owners of a lot of these tracks would rather cash out of this sport and sell these multi-billion dollar valued properties to developers. They aren't going to fight too hard for horseracing when the alternative is selling the land and fattening the wallet like never before. The track owners are in a no lose position. When it's all said and done, it won't even be their fault they had to sell out.

And I'd bet, long term, most of them, including Stronach, are comfortable with that.

[horsefan2019]

The owners of a lot of these tracks would rather cash out of this sport and sell these multi-billion dollar valued properties to developers. They aren't going to fight too hard for horseracing when the alternative is selling the land and fattening the wallet like never before. The track owners are in a no lose position. When it's all said and done, it won't even be their fault they had to sell out.

And I'd bet, long term, most of them, including Stronach, are comfortable with that.

Auto racing and horse racing face the same situation. Their tracks sit on huge plots of land and if a developer really wants it they will pay a premium for it.

[classhandicapper]

If the breakdowns were somehow reduced by, say, 50%...would that appease the anti-racing media and the general public...or are the breakdowns unacceptable to them at ANY level?

Do you want an honest answer?

I think the general public will be satisfied if we can demonstrate that everything possible is being done to ensure animal safety and no one is being irresponsible, neglectful or putting money ahead of safety issues.

The PETA people think I am a horrible human being for having eggs for breakfast. They may even hate me for putting milk in my coffee against a cow's will. They are well meaning, but they are terrorist extremists. Nothing will satisfy them until animals are considered fully equal in almost every way.

[bob60566]

Do you want an honest answer?

I think the general public will be satisfied if we can demonstrate that everything possible is being done to ensure animal safety and no one is being irresponsible, neglectful or putting money ahead of safety issues.

The PETA people think I am a horrible human being for having eggs for breakfast. They may even hate me for putting milk in my coffee against a cow's will. They are well meaning, but they are terrorist extremists. Nothing will satisfy them until animals are considered fully equal in almost every way.

Is giving performance enhancing drugs ensuring animal safety. Y/N

[AndyC]

Is giving performance enhancing drugs ensuring animal safety. Y/N

Is your assumption that all drugs are bad for animal safety? Are there drugs that are given to horses that improve their health and as a result improve performance?

[bob60566]

Is your assumption that all drugs are bad for animal safety? Are there drugs that are given to horses that improve their health and as a result improve performance?

Animal safety is fine and if the vet clears them after using these drugs and the horse is fit to run in races.
The health of the horse comes first not winning races.

[Redboard]

PETA must have had a change of policy this year. The last few years, their spokesmen were saying that if racing got rid of raceday meds, they would leave well enough alone. Now they are calling for an end to horse racing. They never said that before.

[classhandicapper]

Is giving performance enhancing drugs ensuring animal safety. Y/N

No.

There are treatments for normal aches and pains that are probably acceptable and some that probably aren't, but imo we shouldn't race on drugs that could put a horse's health or life at risk (long or short term) or give some an advantage over others.

We need tougher rules, better testing, and then we have to trust vets to treat them responsibly.

[dilanesp]

One thing to remember about PETA. PETA is going to PETA. They are going to make the arguments they make.

But the difference is between when they have real ammunition and when they don't.

Let's consider another issue-- factory farming. Obviously, PETA's position is that we should all become vegetarians or vegans. That's an extreme position! Most people don't agree with that. That argument's not going to get a lot of traction.

But if conditions in factory farms are really inhumane, that gives PETA real ammunition. They can point to those conditions and publicize them and even a lot of people who disagree with PETA about the ultimate issue of eating meat will concede they have a point. And then the public will go after the factory farms.

That's how these animal welfare issues play out. The point isn't to convince PETA-- it's to contain PETA by ceding them only the ground to argue that any sport that "uses" animals is wrong. Because the public doesn't agree with PETA on that. But if the sport gives PETA real ammunition, they become a very effective adversary.

[Jeff P]

PETA must have had a change of policy this year. The last few years, their spokesmen were saying that if racing got rid of raceday meds, they would leave well enough alone. Now they are calling for an end to horse racing. They never said that before.

Maybe PETA has spent enough time rubbing elbows with horsemen at CHRB meetings to know that CA horsemen will fight tooth and nail to keep raceday meds?



-jp

.

[GMB@BP]

There are no "statistics on racetrack deaths in Europe." The more I looked at Euro racing, the more I’m convinced that there are just as many rascals over there than there is here. Yea, they do run less dirt races, but more steeplechase races, where falling seems to be part of the show, and definitely have more breakdowns. My guess is that there’s are just as many per start over there as in North America. Until their industry publishes different, I won't believe otherwise.

Different politics over there.....thats all this is, politics. Has nothing to do with breakdowns.

Its like "no politics in this thread" (I get the why but)....when the whole deal revolves around politics in my opinion.

[horsefan2019]

PETA must have had a change of policy this year. The last few years, their spokesmen were saying that if racing got rid of raceday meds, they would leave well enough alone. Now they are calling for an end to horse racing. They never said that before.

They closed down whale shows and the circus. They need a new cause.

[bob60566]

Intresting one more small step. ?

https://twitter.com/raypaulick/status/1134925081145221126

[airford1]

Intresting one more small step. ?

https://twitter.com/raypaulick/status/1134925081145221126

Now a bunch of Disclaimers will make things alright.

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's something interesting, at least to me.

When you type Horse Racing into Google search, guess what comes up on the middle of the second page of search results, well before sites such as Laurel or Santa Anita or Paulick Report or any number of major racing websites?

That's right....PETA.

Funny stuff, that google...

[highnote]

These people think that having pets is holding them captive.


They're right. Worse, pet owners often neuter their pets by removing ovaries or testicles. How humane is that? My family always had pets when I was a kid. We lived in the country and never cut off their balls or declawed them. Pardon the pun, but they could come and go wherever and whenever they pleased.

The downside to not neutering pets is that sometimes humans (not our family) would throw a burlap sack full of unwanted kittens in the river. Ugly truth.

Service animals or comfort animals is a bit of a gray area, but in the extreme is it ethical to make them service humans?

Zoos might be humane because without zoos some species might go extinct. As long as the zoo keepers try to create a natural environment for the animals it might be ethical.

Humans do not need racehorses. Horseracing is a legacy sport. After the advent of trains and automobiles the demand for grains to feed horses decreased, farmers suffered and then adapted, but the keeping of horses for sport remains. If racing was abolished eventually everyone would adapt.

[PaceAdvantage]

They're right. Worse, pet owners often neuter their pets by removing ovaries or testicles. How humane is that?Very.

[horsefan2019]

They're right. Worse, pet owners often neuter their pets by removing ovaries or testicles. How humane is that? My family always had pets when I was a kid. We lived in the country and never cut off their balls or declawed them. Pardon the pun, but they could come and go wherever and whenever they pleased.

The downside to not neutering pets is that sometimes humans (not our family) would throw a burlap sack full of unwanted kittens in the river. Ugly truth.

Service animals or comfort animals is a bit of a gray area, but in the extreme is it ethical to make them service humans?

Zoos might be humane because without zoos some species might go extinct. As long as the zoo keepers try to create a natural environment for the animals it might be ethical.

Humans do not need racehorses. Horseracing is a legacy sport. After the advent of trains and automobiles the demand for grains to feed horses decreased, farmers suffered and then adapted, but the keeping of horses for sport remains. If racing was abolished eventually everyone would adapt.

Go visit an animal shelter and see how many unwanted pets need homes or are put down daily and you will see why its a good idea to get them fixed. The alternative is much much worse.

[highnote]

Interesting comparison. One day I did the same thing for boxing. I found that boxing doesn’t readily release their statics either for the same reason that racing never did — bad publicity and fear of litigation. But after spending many hours digging out the information that I could, I concluded that the chances of a boxer dying in the ring is about 1 in 5000-6000. It’s scary to think that a horse has a much worse chance of surviving a race than a boxer does in surviving a fight, whose objective is to destroy the other contestant.

Young people die from playing rugby, too -- mostly traumatic brain injuries.

Life is dangerous.

This might contradict my previous post (I guess I do not have a strong position either way because I can see both sides of the argument), but if animals were left alone in the wild then animals that are carnivores would still kill other animals. Apes and baboons kill infants. If you study their behavior you understand why. It seems irrational, but it is actually very rational based on their needs. But does that make it right? Or is it even a question of right or wrong?

This link to a series of free lectures from Stanford University's Robert Sapolsky will help you understand human and ape behavior -- many similarities, but also vast differences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

The point I'm getting to is that animals will die in the wild from predators. Humans can be predators, but can choose not to be. Is it unethical for a human to choose to kill an animal for food? Just because humans have a choice does that mean it is unethical to make a choice to kill an animal for food?

I remember seeing my grandfather kill a hog. He shot it right between the eyes with a .22 rifle and then slit it's throat. It was quite a sight for a 10 year old boy to see -- watching the hog convulse and defecate while its blood streamed down the hillside of the barnyard and then to see its guts fall out when he cut open its belly. He also made sure I got to see the miracle of a sow giving birth. He understood the life cycle. He didn't want to go into a nursing home. So at the end of his life he died like so many of the animals he had slaughtered; but his death was self-inflicted with a shotgun blast to his chest and with a knife spilling his own guts -- hari kari-style.

If an old or feeble hog was attacked by a predator in the wild is that any different than a human killing a hog? It's the same outcome for a hog.

There are a lot of levels from which to examine these issues.

At the end of the day it probably comes down to philosophy, beliefs, and ideology, etc. Is it right for people from Group A to force their beliefs on people from Group B in order to protect beings in Group C? Should have the northern states fought the southern states in order to free slaves? It cost over 600,000 lives. Had the northern states let the south secede it is likely slavery would have ended with many fewer deaths --but slavery would have existed for at least another 20 or 30 years. Slavery ended in Brazil around 1880 without a civil war.

Would it be unethical for PETA to force my grandfather not to kill the hog that will feed his family? Was it unethical for my grandfather to take his own life because he could no longer see and could no longer work his farm and because he didn't want to go into a nursing home?

Horse industry people need to take a stand to protect their livelihood and fight back with a vengeance against PETA. PETA is fighting with a vengeance.

Pardon the pun again, but at this point I have no dog in this fight because I have not made up my mind on this complicated issue. I am interested in the issue from a philosophical point of view.

[horsefan2019]

Meanwhile today, the nuts were out in force.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Animal-Rights-Groups-to-Hold-Funeral-March-on-Beverly-Boulevard-510730911.html

Local animal rights activists are adding a "funeral march" to one of their biggest annual demonstrations Sunday in west Los Angeles.

Held in conjunction with the 9th Annual National Animal Rights Day, the march -- a first in Los Angeles -- will begin at noon along Beverly Boulevard between Fairfax Avenue and Gardner Street. Organizers say the march will honor the "billions of animals killed each year by human hands" on factory farms, in research laboratories, in the fur and cosmetics industries and by hunters.

[highnote]

Very.

Your argument, please.

[Tom]

Ever see a stray mother cat trying to feed herself and 6 hungry kittens while trying to fend of 4 or 5 other Tom's trying to get at her again? Ever see a full male dog going nuts to get outside when you won't let him?

Animals are not people. Spaying or neutering is a kindness.

[mountainman]

No more dirt?? Is somebody banging that drum again?? Death before synthetics. I'd rather bet lacrosse. It's more like horse racing.

[Robert Fischer]

Here's something interesting, at least to me.

When you type Horse Racing into Google search, guess what comes up on the middle of the second page of search results, well before sites such as Laurel or Santa Anita or Paulick Report or any number of major racing websites?

That's right....PETA.

Funny stuff, that google...

Good point.

You may know something about how that works.

Has PETA paid for a higher ranking, or is that really the 15th or whatever most popular search?

I've noticed that (whether true or not) it seems that Google is more and more fake/commercialized in the last several years, to the point that most searches require refined/repeated attempts, and exclusion of certain commercial key-words...

[highnote]

Ever see a stray mother cat trying to feed herself and 6 hungry kittens while trying to fend of 4 or 5 other Tom's trying to get at her again? Ever see a full male dog going nuts to get outside when you won't let him?

Animals are not people. Spaying or neutering is a kindness.

If the strays were in the wild what would happen? Survival of the fittest?

PETA wants people to not keep animals as pets. If no one kept animals as pets the cats would soon evolve (devolve?) into a species that would adapt to its environment. Lynx and bobcats are not that much different than house cats. They seem to get along just fine without the help of humans.

If people did not keep full male dogs as pets there would not be an issue with full male dogs going nuts to go outside in which case there would be no need to lop off their balls. To me, there is something inhumane about castrating an animal. In Argentina, racehorses are rarely gelded. The root of the issue is that it serves the needs of the human, not the pet.

Keeping animals as pets is only an issue because humans have bred animals for the past 10,000 years to suit the needs of humans. The animals, left to their own devices, would never have bred themselves to suit humans. Humans have a tendency to try to force their will on everything and everyone. Humans have not evolved enough to see beyond their own shortcomings and see 500 or 1,000 years into the future. On the other hand, who can say what people will want or need in 500 years?

I'm not saying people should not have pets or that horse racing should be eliminated, but since humans use pets for the purpose of serving humans the question is whether PETA is correct that it is unethical to keep pets, or can keeping pets be justified?

[highnote]

Here's something interesting, at least to me.

When you type Horse Racing into Google search, guess what comes up on the middle of the second page of search results, well before sites such as Laurel or Santa Anita or Paulick Report or any number of major racing websites?

That's right....PETA.

Funny stuff, that google...


Jason Calacanis, A silicon valley investor, said it takes about $10,000 to hire a Search Engine Optimization specialist to have your website appear at the top of search engine queries. He was critical of Rick Santorum for complaining about the LGBT community creating a vulgar neologism of his last name due to Santorum's views on homosexuality at the time, rather than spend money to get his name more prominently displayed. The santorum neologism appeared at the top of search engines, rather than Santorum's own website.

You can search on santorum if you're curious. I wouldn't recommend it. You've been warned. Even after all these years, the neologism still prominently appears.

The point is that with all the money in the racing industry, it wouldn't take much to get positive racing headlines to appear at the top of search engines and make sure they stay there. These days battles are fought on the internet news and social media platforms and as Bob Lefsetz pointed out, everyone is a troll.

[Jeff P]

Half the tracks out there can't even do basic stuff --

Such as showing post parades and pre-race warmups of the actual runners instead of the outrider ponies... adhering to post times... aligning a slow motion replay camera at a 90 degree angle to the finish line instead of several feet to one side or the other so that players don't have to wait for a photograph to be developed in order to know who the winner was... timing their races accurately... How many player complaints have been posted right here on Paceadvantage about CDI messing up the Twinspires UI?...

The list goes on and on and on --

And you expect them to do SEO? :pound:

All kidding aside, SEO isn't rocket science. (Ask me how I know.)

Just for fun, do a Google search for "Keeneland boycott" (without the quotes) and tell me what (still) comes up.



-jp

.

[highnote]

Just for fun, do a Google search for "Keeneland boycott" (without the quotes) and tell me what (still) comes up.

"Keeneland boycott" is pretty specific. Pretty much the first page of search results mentions HANA.

"santorum", on the other hand, should have Rick Santorum as the first result. Surprisingly it is on Bing, but on google the neologism is the first result.

For "Santa Anita Racetrack" on Bing the 3rd and 4th results are about horses dying on track. On google horse deaths are the first and second results because they are listed under "Top stories".

Maybe Stronach's are trying to pull a Donald Sterling and be forced to sell Santa Anita Racetrack in order to avoid paying capital gains taxes?

[PaceAdvantage]

Jason Calacanis, A silicon valley investor, said it takes about $10,000 to hire a Search Engine Optimization specialist to have your website appear at the top of search engine queries. He was critical of Rick Santorum for complaining about the LGBT community creating a vulgar neologism of his last name due to Santorum's views on homosexuality at the time, rather than spend money to get his name more prominently displayed. The santorum neologism appeared at the top of search engines, rather than Santorum's own website.

You can search on santorum if you're curious. I wouldn't recommend it. You've been warned. Even after all these years, the neologism still prominently appears.

The point is that with all the money in the racing industry, it wouldn't take much to get positive racing headlines to appear at the top of search engines and make sure they stay there. These days battles are fought on the internet news and social media platforms and as Bob Lefsetz pointed out, everyone is a troll.Has NOTHING to do with SEO (well, not on PETA's part anyway). I can pretty much guarantee that...but thanks for playing.

[PaceAdvantage]

Young people die from playing rugby, too -- mostly traumatic brain injuries.

Life is dangerous.

This might contradict my previous post (I guess I do not have a strong position either way because I can see both sides of the argument), but if animals were left alone in the wild then animals that are carnivores would still kill other animals. Apes and baboons kill infants. If you study their behavior you understand why. It seems irrational, but it is actually very rational based on their needs. But does that make it right? Or is it even a question of right or wrong?

This link to a series of free lectures from Stanford University's Robert Sapolsky will help you understand human and ape behavior -- many similarities, but also vast differences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

The point I'm getting to is that animals will die in the wild from predators. Humans can be predators, but can choose not to be. Is it unethical for a human to choose to kill an animal for food? Just because humans have a choice does that mean it is unethical to make a choice to kill an animal for food?

I remember seeing my grandfather kill a hog. He shot it right between the eyes with a .22 rifle and then slit it's throat. It was quite a sight for a 10 year old boy to see -- watching the hog convulse and defecate while its blood streamed down the hillside of the barnyard and then to see its guts fall out when he cut open its belly. He also made sure I got to see the miracle of a sow giving birth. He understood the life cycle. He didn't want to go into a nursing home. So at the end of his life he died like so many of the animals he had slaughtered; but his death was self-inflicted with a shotgun blast to his chest and with a knife spilling his own guts -- hari kari-style.

If an old or feeble hog was attacked by a predator in the wild is that any different than a human killing a hog? It's the same outcome for a hog.

There are a lot of levels from which to examine these issues.

At the end of the day it probably comes down to philosophy, beliefs, and ideology, etc. Is it right for people from Group A to force their beliefs on people from Group B in order to protect beings in Group C? Should have the northern states fought the southern states in order to free slaves? It cost over 600,000 lives. Had the northern states let the south secede it is likely slavery would have ended with many fewer deaths --but slavery would have existed for at least another 20 or 30 years. Slavery ended in Brazil around 1880 without a civil war.

Would it be unethical for PETA to force my grandfather not to kill the hog that will feed his family? Was it unethical for my grandfather to take his own life because he could no longer see and could no longer work his farm and because he didn't want to go into a nursing home?

Horse industry people need to take a stand to protect their livelihood and fight back with a vengeance against PETA. PETA is fighting with a vengeance.

Pardon the pun again, but at this point I have no dog in this fight because I have not made up my mind on this complicated issue. I am interested in the issue from a philosophical point of view.https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/049/057/038.jpg

[airford1]

Your argument, please.

Ever see a pack of Coyotes with Feral cats in their mouths and keep coming back to the Cat lady house that keeps feeding the wild cats because it's just a buffet.

[highnote]

Ever see a pack of Coyotes with Feral cats in their mouths and keep coming back to the Cat lady house that keeps feeding the wild cats because it's just a buffet.

No, but coyotes in a cat lady house sounds like a Joni Mitchell song.

But seriously, coyotes have to eat, too.

But I get it that you shouldn't feed wild animals. I stopped feeding wild birds the day I saw a rat eating the seeds on the ground.

Coyotes and foxes eat domesticate chickens, too, but that doesn't stop people from raising chickens.

This is like politics. There is no right answer, just beliefs.

[mountainman]

No, but coyotes in a cat lady house sounds like a Joni Mitchell song.

But seriously, coyotes have to eat, too.

But I get it that you shouldn't feed wild animals. I stopped feeding wild birds the day I saw a rat eating the seeds on the ground.

Coyotes and foxes eat domesticate chickens, too, but that doesn't stop people from raising chickens.

This is like politics. There is no right answer, just beliefs.

The only morality exists between your ears, sir. Conscience is an evolutionary trait selected to perpetuate our species. The savagely chaotic universe is monumentally indifferent to any concept of right or wrong. Both are human inventions.

That is just my opinion.

[highnote]

The only morality exists between your ears, sir. Conscience is an evolutionary trait selected to perpetuate our species. The savagely chaotic universe is monumentally indifferent to any concept of right or wrong. Both are human inventions.

That is just my opinion.

Very good points.

You might like this 25 part series of lectures from Prof. Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University:

#1 The Biology of Human Behavior https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

#2. Behaviorial Evolution part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Oa4Lp5fLE

#3 Behaviorial Evolution part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

Every one I have listened to so far is a 10. He's the best lecturer I have heard.

[AlsoEligible]

Interesting Paulick article yesterday, where the TOC basically admits they have to work with PETA or face extinction:

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/nl-art-1/further-safety-and-welfare-reforms-added-at-santa-anita-upcoming-del-mar-meet/

“The organizations we have dealt with on a daily basis, PETA and the Humane Society, have not come out in favor of a ballot initiative to eliminate racing,” [TOC chair Greg] Avioli said. “It's daunting. Animal welfare, animal rights organizations have a much larger membership base in California than does the horse racing industry broadly defined. So our strategy is to work with their leaders. And their leaders, whether it is the Humane Society or PETA, don't always say things that are very nice about us, and they definitely don't always agree with what we do. But we have engaged them at every level, and we are going to continue to do that. Our resources are not the same as their resources.”

Article also states that at the moment, PETA is not pushing for a ballot initiative. Whether that could change in the coming months, who knows. I believe September or October is the legal deadline to get something started in California.

[highnote]

Why not do away with claiming races? Horses would only change hand by private sale. Presumably, the buyer would have the horse checked out before purchasing it. Then also make it a law that the last owner has to find a suitable home for the horse upon retirement.

Horse racing is called the Sport of Kings for a reason. People who can't afford to take care of their horses when their racing careers are over, probably shouldn't own horses.

[AndyC]

Interesting Paulick article yesterday, where the TOC basically admits they have to work with PETA or face extinction......Article also states that at the moment, PETA is not pushing for a ballot initiative. Whether that could change in the coming months, who knows. I believe September or October is the legal deadline to get something started in California.

No one ever works with PETA they submit to PETA.

[highnote]

No one ever works with PETA they submit to PETA.

Get a backbone. Take a stand and tell PETA to go to hell. Treat them like terrorists.

[Suff]

The savagely chaotic universe is monumentally indifferent to any concept of right or wrong..

Thank you Sir.

[Tom]

Coyotes and foxes eat domesticate chickens, too, but that doesn't stop people from raising chickens.

How many feral chickens do you see roaming around?
People do sterilize feral cats you know. Habitat for Cats for one.
People sterilized to prevent more cats being born. Each cat born either runs wild or is taken to be destroyed. You think that is better?

[highnote]

How many feral chickens do you see roaming around?

Depends on where you look.

People sterilized to prevent more cats being born. Each cat born either runs wild or is taken to be destroyed. You think that is better?

Monkeys run wild in India. I don't see people trying to castrate them. Nature has a way of balancing things out. What's wrong with cats running wild?

People don't sterilize bobcats or mountain lions or hyenas or rats or wolves or coyotes or bears or ducks or...

[PaceAdvantage]

Monkeys run wild in India.That's one reason I don't live in India. One of many.

[highnote]

That's one reason I don't live in India. One of many.

Monkeys are cool -- unless they bite you. An organ grinder's money bit my aunt on her face. Her face got infected and she had to get a shot of anti-biotics. Talk about a weird event!

[FenceBored]

Depends on where you look.



Monkeys run wild in India. I don't see people trying to castrate them. Nature has a way of balancing things out. What's wrong with cats running wild?

People don't sterilize bobcats or mountain lions or hyenas or rats or wolves or coyotes or bears or ducks or...


There are programs to sterilize wild deer populations in some states to slow the population growth.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Get a backbone. Take a stand and tell PETA to go to hell. Treat them like terrorists.

Great idea, then we can watch ballot initiatives go from California to Florida in record time

[highnote]

New York plans to introduce a bill to ban the declawing of cats.

[PaceAdvantage]

The three cats I've had in my life (2 current, 1 in kitty heaven), none have been declawed...never, ever, ever, would do that.

But to make it illegal...well...that's just going to lead to more cats being euthanized and not being adopted. A lot of people don't want a cat that's going to claw up the furniture.

Which is worse? Declawed cat or dead cat. You tell me.

[cutchemist42]

ESPN article out saying she wants racing suspended now again.

[airford1]

Some what of a local media frenzy, Radio and T.V. Hear about is every 1/2 hour since the last Horse died. No real reporting just the Flash at a horse died. Whatever happened to investigative reporting and creditable references. They need to change California to the Chup State.

[Dream_Police]

The BIG question is if California is able to get something on the ballot and if it does then it gets REAL as in the prospect of no racing in CA for at least a period of time. I believe all here and around the country do not like the situation in SA as far as horse fatalities but when there is inaction or perception of no action then you are just inviting the hammer to come down on you and that seems to be what is happening out west.

[horsefan2019]

The BIG question is if California is able to get something on the ballot and if it does then it gets REAL as in the prospect of no racing in CA for at least a period of time. I believe all here and around the country do not like the situation in SA as far as horse fatalities but when there is inaction or perception of no action then you are just inviting the hammer to come down on you and that seems to be what is happening out west.

Except the action these activists want is shutting down all the race tracks. There is no compromising with these people.

[dilanesp]

The BIG question is if California is able to get something on the ballot and if it does then it gets REAL as in the prospect of no racing in CA for at least a period of time. I believe all here and around the country do not like the situation in SA as far as horse fatalities but when there is inaction or perception of no action then you are just inviting the hammer to come down on you and that seems to be what is happening out west.

If they get a measure on the ballot, it is no racing forever in California. The public hates us and the tracks will quickly be torn down once it passes.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Except the action these activists want is shutting down all the race tracks. There is no compromising with these people.

I don't believe for a second that PETA as an organization wants racing stopped, this is easy money/donations for the org. The problem for them, which they caused, is that the mainstream media has now taken over as the voice for a public that wants something to complain about and voice outrage

[theiman]

Peta, in Australia, took in $1.8M(AUS) in donations in 2018. They returned $0.00 to animal welfare.

https://www.facebook.com/horseracing.aus/photos/a.1659652347579484/2340975749447137/?type=3&theater

[highnote]

I wonder if any anti-peta activists have infiltrated peta?

[horsefan2019]

I don't believe for a second that PETA as an organization wants racing stopped, this is easy money/donations for the org. The problem for them, which they caused, is that the mainstream media has now taken over as the voice for a public that wants something to complain about and voice outrage

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think those people protesting outside of Santa Anita are part of PETA. I believe those were the same people that showed up to the CHRB meeting demanding that horse racing be stopped in the state.

[jay68802]

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think those people protesting outside of Santa Anita are part of PETA. I believe those were the same people that showed up to the CHRB meeting demanding that horse racing be stopped in the state.

Same people showing up for the same cause time and time again. Out of the good of their pocketbook....

[MNslappy]

Has NOTHING to do with SEO

100% Correct.

They routinely manipulate search results to get the public to accept the programming.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-66710d2f7759fdc12cf6f989e57dca3a

[horsefan2019]

;)Same people showing up for the same cause time and time again. Out of the good of their pocketbook....

There are more than one animal activst group that are against the sport. I'm pretty sure they have their own goals that are divergent from PETA. Whatever it is, these people are organizing and spending lots of time and money to protest.

[clicknow]

A lot of people don't want a cat that's going to claw up the furniture.

Hence, there are lots of other choices they have for pet ownership. Cats should not be included.

Dogs shed and leave fur on your furniture. Children tear up furniture, too.

Furniture is never, in the scheme of values, going to be more important than a living, sentient being. Best to opt for an aquarium or cage-based pet for furniture-centric people.

I agree with you about dead or declawed, however if you declawed cat ever leaves the safe confines of the house, declawing them almost ensures their death, since you have removed their entire defense system that they were BORN WITH. Seems very cruel to me, esp. if you're doing it for *furniture*.

I know you are against declawing and probably for same reason.


My beautiful yellow lab having just died of old age, I would give anybody all my furniture if I could have him back. He was the best dog I ever had in 60 years and I've had a lot of 'em.

[castaway01]

Hence, there are lots of other choices they have for pet ownership. Cats should not be included.

Dogs shed and leave fur on your furniture. Children tear up furniture, too.

Furniture is never, in the scheme of values, going to be more important than a living, sentient being. Best to opt for an aquarium or cage-based pet for furniture-centric people.

I agree with you about dead or declawed, however if you declawed cat ever leaves the safe confines of the house, declawing them almost ensures their death, since you have removed their entire defense system that they were BORN WITH. Seems very cruel to me, esp. if you're doing it for *furniture*.

I know you are against declawing and probably for same reason.


My beautiful yellow lab having just died of old age, I would give anybody all my furniture if I could have him back. He was the best dog I ever had in 60 years and I've had a lot of 'em.

Whether or not people should declaw their cats is not the same as whether it should be branded as illegal and the government/law enforcement enact punishments and fines against it. I'm against declawing but don't think people should be fined or jailed if they do so.

[clicknow]

Whether or not people should declaw their cats is not the same as whether it should be branded as illegal and the government/law enforcement enact punishments and fines against it. I'm against declawing but don't think people should be fined or jailed if they do so.

While I agree with you in sentiment, and certainly don't believe in jail or fines for people who declaw cats, I have mixed feeling about no regulations when it comes to pets since that is exactly what allows states like Missouri to be one of the top puppy mill states in the U.S.

All I can say is that unless you have visited a few of these in a rescue operation (which you would need brain bleach to overcome for the rest of your life) the untold level of suffering and pain for these animals is rather overwhelming. This is precisely because Missouri does not have *harsh* laws against doing stuff to animals that you *own*.

So I am not totally against regulations to protect living feeling beings, it just depends on the level of course, and jailing/fining people who declaw does seem pretty much overboard. ;)

Declawing (w/out anesthetic!) should be reserved to be practiced only *on* humans who run puppy mills. :)

[highnote]

So I am not totally against regulations to protect living feeling beings, it just depends on the level of course,

I did a job with a company that raised breeding chickens. We drove from Georgia to Missouri visiting their various operations.

The one thing that struck me as inhumane was the way hatchlings were treated. The eggs with chicks inside were kept in big drawers under a heat lamp. As the chicks started hatching some of them were weak and wouldn't make it. Others were deformed. etc etc etc.

The healthy ones they kept. The unhealthy ones were tossed into a big plastic trash can lined with a large garbage bag. When the garbage bag filled up they pulled it out of the trash can and disposed of it somewhere -- dumpster? incinerator?

The chickens that were healthy were then raised in black-out barns. The light was regulated to boost their growth cycle, I assume. I seem to recall the chickens only lived for 6 weeks before they were slaughtered.

That's industrial farming for you.

Think about that next time you have chicken for dinner. Or not. You might lose your appetite for chicken.

[clicknow]

That's industrial farming for you.

Think about that next time you have chicken for dinner. Or not. You might lose your appetite for chicken.

Its actually much worse for pigs, who apparently are more intelligent than dogs.

Let's not go there, industrial farming is not pleasant.

[GMB@BP]

Its actually much worse for pigs, who apparently are more intelligent than dogs.

Let's not go there, industrial farming is not pleasant.

cant have industrialized large populations without industrial farming, across all levels of that spectrum.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hence, there are lots of other choices they have for pet ownership. Cats should not be included.

Dogs shed and leave fur on your furniture. Children tear up furniture, too.

Furniture is never, in the scheme of values, going to be more important than a living, sentient being. Best to opt for an aquarium or cage-based pet for furniture-centric people.

I agree with you about dead or declawed, however if you declawed cat ever leaves the safe confines of the house, declawing them almost ensures their death, since you have removed their entire defense system that they were BORN WITH. Seems very cruel to me, esp. if you're doing it for *furniture*.

I know you are against declawing and probably for same reason.


My beautiful yellow lab having just died of old age, I would give anybody all my furniture if I could have him back. He was the best dog I ever had in 60 years and I've had a lot of 'em.If you don't think this ISN'T going to be a factor for a family looking for their first pet, and are considering a cat, then you're not thinking clearly.

[clicknow]

If you don't think this ISN'T going to be a factor for a family looking for their first pet, and are considering a cat, then you're not thinking clearly.

Never said it wasn't a factor.

Thinking clearly includes the undestanding that many people are somewhat selfish and shallow, and would think nothing of removing a cat's primary defense system and protection, to protect an inanimate piece of furniture.

Sort of like people who are not active, and have no time for a pet, get an active breed dog, which quite often eventually ends up in a rescue shelter somewhere.

And we're supposed to be the smart, thinking, compassionate species with brains and logic.

[groupie doll]

Sort of like people who are not active, and have no time for a pet, get an active breed dog, which quite often eventually ends up in a rescue shelter somewhere.


This reminds me one of my neighbors down the hall. We live in a large high rise apartment complex in a metropolitan area and she's a student (and works) and hardly ever home. That didn't stop her from getting a large Lab- bulldog mix and leaving in her apartment barking all day while she is out. Thankfully I don't work from home.
A thinking species with brains and logic humans are not (by and large).


Going back to the declawed cat vs dead cat question: if both the surgery and the euthanasia were performed under humane circumstances, then the dead cat is better. At least it's not being forced to exist in a surgically mutilated deformed state (reminds me of the Almodóvar film, ick). The worst people are the ones (and I have seen this a number of times in practice) who get their cats declawed and then proceed to let them outdoors. Logic, thinking... nope! :D

[Hambletonian]

If you don't think this ISN'T going to be a factor for a family looking for their first pet, and are considering a cat, then you're not thinking clearly.

I have owned mostly declawed cats. While I cannot speak to how the animal feels about the process, I can say that besides walking gingerly for 24 hours or so, none of the cats have had declawed has ever shown any other symptom. One day later, you would not be able to tell they were operated on. I am guessing in the relative scheme of things that spaying or neutering involves more physical and especially mental issues than declawing.

The decision to declaw was made by my parents when I was young for our first cats...after that when additional cats were brought into the house it was done to level the playing field. It should be noted that all my cats are 100% indoor.

Some cats are more destructive than others by temperament, but when it comes to the kitty pecking order, no quarter is shown to a rival who is missing his defenses. And beside the threat of physical abuse to the declawed cat, they will often react by engaging in actions to express their displeasure, such as peeing on/marking everything in sight.

Recently we had a shelter cat and a purebred siamese who were both older and both came down with cancer. Both were operated on; one had her leg amputated. When a neighbor unexpectedly died, their barn cat was left on its own. We found this fellow, an adult manx. eating bread my wife put out for the birds> It was the middle of winter, and we decided to try and help him. We decided we would at the very least make him a sunroom cat if he was untrainable or feline HIV or leukemia positive. Luckily, except for some ticks and a broken tooth, he was ok. It took a while for him to enjoy his life as a homebody, and he turned out to be very smart and friendly. however, we declawed him because we didn't want to take a chance with our two cancer sufferers.

Fast forward, and after the cancer victims had succumbed, a coworker offered us two feral cats she had taken in as kittens. She had tried to give them away twice before but they would immediately hide in their new home so the folks involved brought them back. They were fixed, but had claws. And when they joined us, they immediately spent every hour teaming up on the Manx. Who it turns out could have kept his claws...he, nearly a decade alter, has turned out to be a fine gentleman. Well, the newcomers had to be declawed to keep the peace, as the Manx starting acting up to show his displeasure.

Our newest addition, though, has his claws. Besides treating our bedroom rug like a scratching post, he is non aggressive with his claws and non destructive. He did enter the herd as a kitten though, which may have reduced the chance of aggressive encounter. The breeder we bought him from has a contract which forbids declawing, and although good luck enforcing that, we did decided to roll with it. If he had been a ornery fellow we would have tried the soft nail coverings, but he has been an absolute gentlemen. And even as he has gotten bigger, he at 2 is the biggest cat of the bunch, he is non aggressive by personality. He does not use his claws to abuse his elders, but I must say he has never had an altercation with any of buddies in nearly three years of any kind.

From my experience then, declawing is no crueler than other accepted procedures like spaying and neutering. Frankly folks do the latter for behavior modification as much as anything else. Further, keeping your cat outdoors even with claws is far worse for the cat's well being then an indoor declawed cat. Twenty four hours of mild discomfort seems like a small price to pay to have a forever home, and I agree that laws to outlaw declawing are misplaced and not in the interest of the poor kitties looking for a home.

This is all just from my experiences in 40+ years of cat ownership, and I realize that caring, thoughtful folks out there may disagree.