Questions regarding eight belles and other horses.....

[newtothegame]

First off let me preface this by saying that I am WRITING with a sickened feeling. . I greatly value all of your opinions and am asking you to be impartial with your response versus your years and love of the sport. I know thats difficult as your answers will rely on your years of experience. I hope you all can understand this..
I must tell you that ALL last night I was to the point of being sick to my stomache after watching what happened to eight belles.
Between friday and Saturday, there were three horses that I know of break down. Two that I know of were euthanized. Providing I am not mistaken two were at Churchill and the third was at Evangeline.
I know most of you all's disdain for the synthetic tracks and I understand the reasoning due to the handicapping problems that most post about on here. BUT IS THE SYNTHETICS EASIER ON THE HORSES???
All three horses that broke down this passing weekend (that I know of ) were on DIRT tracks. Is there some logic in this? I mean if it is the Dirt that might be "helping" these horses to break down then I for one have to tell you that as a handicapper, we need to learn synthetics and get rid of dirt. After all, isnt the love of "ponies" the reason handicappers due what they do? Or is it just the MONEY factor? If its the money factor, then I for one do not wish to be a part of the exploitation of horses ( death) for a monetary gain. I got "hooked" on this sport cause I love the horses. The gracefulness in which they run. The sound of hoofs pounding the track as they rounded the turns and headed for home. The way these horses carry themselves (feeling) proud and perky as they tower over most everyone in the winners circle. The perky ears...I think you get my point. As I watched eight belles attempt to struggle to get back to her feet, all I could think of was that this horse had so much heart and pride that she was willing to suffer more to stand gracefully as she had given her all. She had run what might be the race of her life and in her mind, I felt she just wanted to be on her feet. Now I will say that I think she was treated with respect and dignity and NO ONE wanted her suffering. AS most attempted to hold her down to cause her less pain. But it doesnt change the basic questions as to why did this happen?
This morning in reflection, I honestly dont care who won. Big Brown showed alot of people wrong and showed that he could go on possibly win the elusive triple crown. But at what cost?? Will he have to push himself to the point of death?
I really dont want this to come across as I am now opposed to racing. I AM NOT!! But with todays breeding (for faster bloodlines) are we in essence building horses that are ineviteably gonna push themselves "to far" for the sake of a race in which we are gonna benefit a few dollars? If the answer is yes, then I have to say we need to be proponents for safer tracks. If the synthetics are "easier" on the horse due to cushioning, then LETS DO IT. If its proven that just as many horses break down on synthetics versus dirt, then maybe we have to look at the breeding and bloodlines and see if there is a "flaw" that is causing this! I really dont want to see another horse breakdown on the track attempting to do (for our benefit) what it will ultimately cause...its death.
Thanks for listening... New to the game....

[newtothegame]

As someone "new to the game" I would think that I could get some serious thoughtout replies. Almost everyone here agrees we need "new blood" in the sport. I for one am one of the new people. But you all have to understand that as a new person, there will be questions. All I am looking for is answers (if possible).

[JustRalph]

I saw a stat yesterday

"According to several estimates, there are 1.5 career-ending breakdowns for every 1,000 racing starts in the United States. That's an average of two per day. "


Not sure how accurate this is, It is from a Washington Post article going after horse racing.

But to change every track to Poly based on these numbers, is crazy.

Do the math. Do you think you could cut it to a smaller number? I don't see how.

[Shenanigans]

Newtothegame, I personally don't think turning all surfaces to poly will make a large difference in the amount of breakdowns. The reason is because trainers will just push the horses harder on poly (some already have) because of the impression that it's safer. A poly track is not going to stop freak accidents from happening or keep sore horses that have no business racing from breaking down.

[magwell]

As someone "new to the game" I would think that I could get some serious thoughtout replies. Almost everyone here agrees we need "new blood" in the sport. I for one am one of the new people. But you all have to understand that as a new person, there will be questions. All I am looking for is answers (if possible). Most of us feel your pain, but this game is always 30-40 years behind the times.....:(

[newtothegame]

so then would we be making the assumptions that Trainers are to blame for these breakdowns? Please do not think I am being contrite in my responses. I am just seriously asking questions as I think we need to know. If this sport is to go on, we cant have what are percieved to be some of the best horses breakdown on national television much less anywhere else. If these are the "champion horses" what does that say for the lesser horses in the 5000 claimers?? My point is we need to find out why and FIX IT if this sport will ever return to its once greatness. It is our responsibility as horse lovers (as I am sure most here are) to fix the problems. How do we do that?? First it takes answers to mine as well as many other's questions. If trainers are the problem because they are "pushing to hard" then we have to address that issue. If its dirt versus poly, then thats an issue we have to address...If its breeding that possibly could be causing these breakdowns..again we need to address. How? I have no clue...but I promise not to stop looking for answers.

Now I know nascar is much different sport but look at what safety has done for it!!! It has become one of the biggest sports in the world and ALL THE MORE SAFER. There will always be an inherent danger in any sport but I believe it our responsibility to minimize those dangers no matter the cost for the true life blood of this sport.

[newtothegame]

I saw a stat yesterday

"According to several estimates, there are 1.5 career-ending breakdowns for every 1,000 racing starts in the United States. That's an average of two per day. "


Not sure how accurate this is, It is from a Washington Post article going after horse racing.

But to change every track to Poly based on these numbers, is crazy.

Do the math. Do you think you could cut it to a smaller number? I don't see how.


Well if this is true, my question would be of those 1.5 for every thousand, how many are on dirt??? I saw three this weekend on dirt. If its dirt, and we can confirm its dirt through numbers, then as horse lovers FIRST, dont you think we have a responsibility to rectify this problem? Will it possibly cause us to rethink all of our handicapping thoughts? YES, without a doubt. But for the betterment of the horses (which is what makes this sport anyways) do you not think that is the right thing to do?

[magwell]

Poly tracks are a big step to help the horses....but like i said we are way behind

[stuball]

Injuries will happen regardless. We could just leave them in the barn...wait they kick their stalls and get injured... The better ones push their bodies to the limit and sometimes beyond...that's what we love about them..it's a sad fact
but a fact of life...

Stuball

[PaceAdvantage]

Horses are fragile animals, and have been since the beginning. Their legs are tiny compared to the rest of their bodies, and have the added burden of carrying all that mass. The g-forces concentrated on their ankle and cannon bone while running are mind boggling.

It doesn't really matter WHAT they run on....dirt...polytrack....a grass covered valley in nature....they're always vulnerable to breaking what really is both the weakest AND the strongest part of their body....their legs....

[lamboguy]

i want to add that horses that don't race get the same fatal injuries at same percentage of those that run on grass or dirt or synthetic. in humans teeth are not perfect, in horses its their legs.

[DJofSD]

"According to several estimates, there are 1.5 career-ending breakdowns for every 1,000 racing starts in the United States. That's an average of two per day. "

There's career ending, life threatening and there's fatally injured. I wonder if all three of the of those subcategoires were lumped into that single statistic. And just to be clear, career ending would mean not racing again but still capable of being ridden or going to the breeding shed, life threatening would be those injuries that might be recovered from but the horse would only be able to stand in a stall or out in a pasture and fatally would be having to be put down as a result of the injury in any time frame such as Barbaro.

[jma]

so then would we be making the assumptions that Trainers are to blame for these breakdowns? Please do not think I am being contrite in my responses. I am just seriously asking questions as I think we need to know. If this sport is to go on, we cant have what are percieved to be some of the best horses breakdown on national television much less anywhere else. If these are the "champion horses" what does that say for the lesser horses in the 5000 claimers?? My point is we need to find out why and FIX IT if this sport will ever return to its once greatness.


I would say that the horses themselves aren't nearly as durable as they used to be, for various reasons.

Before I start, I'd say that dirt vs. poly is not the "reason" for the breakdowns. Horses have raced on dirt for over 100 years. They used to run 20 to 30 races a year and not break down, so why would dirt be causing the breakdowns now? Again, not saying dirt courses can't be hard and dangerous, just that horses of the past did just fine with them.

Now, my possible explanations for the recent rash of breakdowns in big races:

1) For the past 30 years or more, most breeders have bred for speed, speed, speed---to win early and often. This has led to horses with less endurance, less ability to withstand many races in a short period, and more physical problems. More solidly built horses that would run best at 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 miles are as not popular to breed to because of the lack of races at that distance.
Today's horses may be even more muscular in the upper body than those in the past (for various reasons) but can their legs support the weight over a series of races? Not as many can.
2) The use of legal drugs such as Lasix and Bute led to some horses having successful careers that otherwise wouldn't. These horses were then bred, and their offspring were bred, until you had more horses now that need drugs to race or don't have proper confirmation. (Obviously not every horse needs Lasix that is on it, but I think the overall point is true.) Drugs that mask pain have similarly led to horses with physical infirmities being bred and passing those infirmities on to their offspring.
3) In a related issue, we don't know the effects of steroid use on young horses. Many horses up for sale at 2-year-old sales are given steroids so they can run fast times and look more impressive---this is not illegal---what damage does this do to their developing bones? Does the increased musculature lead to too much weight for those bones to carry, or start problems that don't surface for a couple years?
4)The idea that trainers are "pushing them too hard"...well, they could be based on the fragility of the breed now. However, many of yesterday's Derby starters had run 4 to 6 races before the Derby. In the "old days", that would be an extremely lightly raced Derby horse. So, horses certainly could handle more racing than that in the past without being "pushed too hard". Unless Larry Jones knew of an injury to Eight Belles that he was covering up, I can't say that nine races in a career is pushing a horse too hard. We'd have to have been in the barn with the horse to really know her condition though.

As far as solutions, if polytrack can be conclusively proven to be safer, then it might help a bit. However, it's putting a bandaid overly a larger problem---one that some breeders and horsemen have been warning us about for 30 years.

[Jeff P]

In the XRD Results File BRIS assigns a value for finish position of 92 to identify horses that DNF (did not finish a race.) A horse can fail to finish a race for any number of reasons including bolting, a lost rider, clipped heels/fell, eased, saddle slipped, non catastrophic breakdown, and of course catastrophic breakdown. The finish position of 92 does not differentiate among the different reasons a horse can DNF. But to my knowledge it's the only indicator besides the chartcaller's comments in the file that points out cases when a horse fails to finish a race. If Bris had a specific data field for break downs I'd run numbers off that instead of finish position = 92.

Here is a simple breakdown by surface for horses that DNF (did not finish) their races in my calendar year 2007 database:

Calendar Year 2007 DNFs

SURFACE DNFs STARTERS PCT ODDS
---------- ---- -------- ----- ---------
ARTIFICIAL 239 38,877 .0062 1 in 162
TURF 344 39,112 .0088 1 in 112
PLAIN DIRT 1,628 149,014 .0109 1 in 90While I personally dislike artificial surfaces because they change the nature of the game, the above numbers do accurately reflect the percentages when it comes to horses failing to finish races on different surfaces.



posted by JMA:Before I start, I'd say that dirt vs. poly is not the "reason" for the breakdowns. Horses have raced on dirt for over 100 years. They used to run 20 to 30 races a year and not break down, so why would dirt be causing the breakdowns now? Again, not saying dirt courses can't be hard and dangerous, just that horses of the past did just fine with them...JMA, sharp post! I agree with you 100 pct. Artificial surfaces are just a band aid for a much bigger problem.




-jp

.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Confrmation at b irth and caused by past injury, training, the track, overwork, freak accident- all can cause catastrophic injury to a horse's legs.
IMO each cause should be addressed to look for a solution instead of wild guessing based on 1 or even 3 incidents and lumping tham all together. But like most aspects of racing, it is up to the horsemen to require it.

[dutchboy]

What is the big deal about 1.5 horses per thousand? What percent are hauled off to be turned in to dog food because they are not fast enough too run or too old. Probably 98%. Doubt if many race horses die of old age or natural causes.

Dying on the track is a better way to go for the avg horse than to be abandoned to starve or sold off as last weeks garbage no matter how much money the horse may have won for it's connections. Nice thing about dying in a breakdown is that they feel no pain. Endorphyns created in the brain while running blocks the pain for a period of time which is one reason they are destroyed on track.

What they did to Barbaro was more inhumane than if he had been humanely destoyed. Made for a feel good sob story for the press but it served no purpose for the horse.

[PaceAdvantage]

Made for a feel good sob story for the press but it served no purpose for the horse.Really? Those extra days he had grazing in the sun, nuzzling other horses, being with owners who loved him....that isn't better off than being dead and buried in the ground?

Such an odd look at the gift of life, whether it be an animal or not....but hey, to each his own I guess....

[DJofSD]

What is the big deal about 1.5 horses per thousand? What percent are hauled off to be turned in to dog food because they are not fast enough too run or too old. Probably 98%. Doubt if many race horses die of old age or natural causes.

At one time there were numerous second careers race horses could persue. Pleasure horses, hunters, jumpers, dressage and even low level three day eventers. I'm not so sure if those channels still exist.

How many horse are spirited away to be sold on the black market for food is an open question in my mind. Yes, it's suppose to be illegal. But we all know how vigorously rules and regulations are enforced. Maybe that's something that is an unintended consequence of NAFTA.

[Bobzilla]

Newtothegame, I hope yesterday's tragedy doesn't turn you away from the sport completely; though the lows can be quite grim, the highs can be exhilarating and even heart warming (e.g. Frances Genter). Thanks also for starting a thread on an important topic.

JMA, you wrote what was in my opinion one of the most complete post on the topic I've read to date. I hope you cut and paste your post and send it into the DRF, Blood-horse, and thoroughbredtimes' letters to the editor section.

I think it was Stuball who touched on something I've been noticing. It seems to me that there is a disproportinate amount of break downs during the graded stakes races, the same ones that attract national attention. I sometimes wonder if this is because of the competitive spirit of the animals that qualify for and are entered into these challenging tests. Character traits, which combined with their athletic talent, make them more prone to these types of injuries because they are the ones who dig down deep summoning all their resources, asking more from their bodies then their bodies can deliver. I'll never forget Go For Wand digging down deep when challenged by Bayakoa.

Though I strongly suspect a state of the art traditional dirt surface can be made to be as safe as a synthetic surface in regard to front limb safety, I do think that CD isn't doing the sport any favors by scraping their surface on Derby day with the aim of making the Derby play more like a 9 panel event rather than a 10 panel event, to compensate for the true lack of stamina bred into the modern thoroughbred. I'd rather see 2:06:00 on a non souped up traditional dirt surface.

One name I would like to bring up to anybody that has an interest in the topic of racing surfaces would be Dr. Michael Peterson of the University of Maine. If you google his name you will find all kinds of articles having to do iwith his work with making racing surfaces safer. He has developed a biomechanical hoof device which is able to measure shear on a racing surface. Surfaces with too little shear often lead to all kinds of soft-tissue complications while a surface with too much shear places excessive horizontal stresses on much of the lower skeletal system. Though I would suspect he might prefer synthetics, I would still consider him a more credible source on the topic than many of the other names you might here only because many of the recognized experts on race surface safety have a vested interest in the promotion and installation of synthetic surfaces. Dr. Peterson has mentioned in the past he feels a dirt surface can be made to be "almost" as safe as a AWS.

[PurplePower]

I saw a stat yesterday

"According to several estimates, there are 1.5 career-ending breakdowns for every 1,000 racing starts in the United States. That's an average of two per day. "......But to change every track to Poly based on these numbers, is crazy. .....Do the math. Do you think you could cut it to a smaller number? I don't see how. Ralph, We lament the breakdown of one horse (because it occurred on national tv?) but we're not willing to consider something that could save the lives of 100 or 200 horses a year? Two per day is 720 a year. if we reduce the number per 1000 starts by just .25 the estimated number of horses' lives saved would be around 150 a year. In addition the data that is coming in on AWS (all-weather surfaces is their "official" designation) indicates that non-life taking injuries are lessened as well. Yes, Ralph we can cut it to a smaller number.

Trainers for the most part are NOT the cruel, horse-hating animal abusers that for some reason some on this board like to label them.

"NewTTG", some in the racing industry work diligently to improve racing for all of us. (http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/summitDisplay.asp) :)

Oh -- and by the way. I understand there is a move to make all our Interstate highways gravel roads. Seems that back when all our roads were gravel we had fewer deaths per 1000 miles driven than we do today. ;)

[JustRalph]

Ralph, We lament the breakdown of one horse (because it occurred on national tv?) but we're not willing to consider something that could save the lives of 100 or 200 horses a year? Two per day is 720 a year. if we reduce the number per 1000 starts by just .25 the estimated number of horses' lives saved would be around 150 a year. In addition the data that is coming in on AWS (all-weather surfaces is their "official" designation) indicates that non-life taking injuries are lessened as well. Yes, Ralph we can cut it to a smaller number.

Trainers for the most part are NOT the cruel, horse-hating animal abusers that for some reason some on this board like to label them.

"NewTTG", some in the racing industry work diligently to improve racing for all of us. (http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/summitDisplay.asp) :)

Oh -- and by the way. I understand there is a move to make all our Interstate highways gravel roads. Seems that back when all our roads were gravel we had fewer deaths per 1000 miles driven than we do today. ;)

Points well taken counselor. I do think we need a larger sample of races though. A couple of three meets isn't enough yet.

Some of these tracks that rushed to install it in the first year, I think may have jumped the gun. Especially since they didn't have regional data to work with. It appears that Weather makes a huge difference. I am all for saving the horses......... I just think the haste in making these decisions may not wear well after 5-7 years.

I very much appreciate your comments Reid.

[asH]

I would say that the horses themselves aren't nearly as durable as they used to be, for various reasons.

Before I start, I'd say that dirt vs. poly is not the "reason" for the breakdowns. Horses have raced on dirt for over 100 years. They used to run 20 to 30 races a year and not break down, so why would dirt be causing the breakdowns now? Again, not saying dirt courses can't be hard and dangerous, just that horses of the past did just fine with them.

Now, my possible explanations for the recent rash of breakdowns in big races:

1) For the past 30 years or more, most breeders have bred for speed, speed, speed---to win early and often. This has led to horses with less endurance, less ability to withstand many races in a short period, and more physical problems. More solidly built horses that would run best at 1 1/4 to 1 3/4 miles are as not popular to breed to because of the lack of races at that distance.
Today's horses may be even more muscular in the upper body than those in the past (for various reasons) but can their legs support the weight over a series of races? Not as many can.
2) The use of legal drugs such as Lasix and Bute led to some horses having successful careers that otherwise wouldn't. These horses were then bred, and their offspring were bred, until you had more horses now that need drugs to race or don't have proper confirmation. (Obviously not every horse needs Lasix that is on it, but I think the overall point is true.) Drugs that mask pain have similarly led to horses with physical infirmities being bred and passing those infirmities on to their offspring.
3) In a related issue, we don't know the effects of steroid use on young horses. Many horses up for sale at 2-year-old sales are given steroids so they can run fast times and look more impressive---this is not illegal---what damage does this do to their developing bones? Does the increased musculature lead to too much weight for those bones to carry, or start problems that don't surface for a couple years?
4)The idea that trainers are "pushing them too hard"...well, they could be based on the fragility of the breed now. However, many of yesterday's Derby starters had run 4 to 6 races before the Derby. In the "old days", that would be an extremely lightly raced Derby horse. So, horses certainly could handle more racing than that in the past without being "pushed too hard". Unless Larry Jones knew of an injury to Eight Belles that he was covering up, I can't say that nine races in a career is pushing a horse too hard. We'd have to have been in the barn with the horse to really know her condition though.

As far as solutions, if polytrack can be conclusively proven to be safer, then it might help a bit. However, it's putting a bandaid overly a larger problem---one that some breeders and horsemen have been warning us about for 30 years.


agree with all of your points... point # 4 "'today's' trainers pushing to hard," seems to go contrary to the initial "They used to run 20 to 30 races a year and not break down", not these days; three races and you win the Derby. I believe the study of how tracks themselves changed in 100 years; the track of yesterday is not the track of today, technology has changed how tracks are put together maintenance of the tracks have also changed. Tracks are designed for faster times (except DMR & Turfway )in mind. So along with your excellent points I submit; understanding how tracks evolved over 100 year period.

[newtothegame]

Newtothegame, I hope yesterday's tragedy doesn't turn you away from the sport completely; though the lows can be quite grim, the highs can be exhilarating and even heart warming (e.g. Frances Genter). Thanks also for starting a thread on an important topic.

JMA, you wrote what was in my opinion one of the most complete post on the topic I've read to date. I hope you cut and paste your post and send it into the DRF, Blood-horse, and thoroughbredtimes' letters to the editor section.

I think it was Stuball who touched on something I've been noticing. It seems to me that there is a disproportinate amount of break downs during the graded stakes races, the same ones that attract national attention. I sometimes wonder if this is because of the competitive spirit of the animals that qualify for and are entered into these challenging tests. Character traits, which combined with their athletic talent, make them more prone to these types of injuries because they are the ones who dig down deep summoning all their resources, asking more from their bodies then their bodies can deliver. I'll never forget Go For Wand digging down deep when challenged by Bayakoa.

Though I strongly suspect a state of the art traditional dirt surface can be made to be as safe as a synthetic surface in regard to front limb safety, I do think that CD isn't doing the sport any favors by scraping their surface on Derby day with the aim of making the Derby play more like a 9 panel event rather than a 10 panel event, to compensate for the true lack of stamina bred into the modern thoroughbred. I'd rather see 2:06:00 on a non souped up traditional dirt surface.

One name I would like to bring up to anybody that has an interest in the topic of racing surfaces would be Dr. Michael Peterson of the University of Maine. If you google his name you will find all kinds of articles having to do iwith his work with making racing surfaces safer. He has developed a biomechanical hoof device which is able to measure shear on a racing surface. Surfaces with too little shear often lead to all kinds of soft-tissue complications while a surface with too much shear places excessive horizontal stresses on much of the lower skeletal system. Though I would suspect he might prefer synthetics, I would still consider him a more credible source on the topic than many of the other names you might here only because many of the recognized experts on race surface safety have a vested interest in the promotion and installation of synthetic surfaces. Dr. Peterson has mentioned in the past he feels a dirt surface can be made to be "almost" as safe as a AWS.

Thank you...
And no, I really feel I want to be more involved now then ever. especially after yesterdays events. If I were to walk away now, that would be turning a blind eye to the problem. Now this is not to say that I can get anything done...hell I am just a southerner with absolutely no connections to the racing world. But I can ensure you that I will write as many letters as I possibly can, attempting to bring light to some of the problems in this sport that I chose to be a part of. Where will it get me or the sport?? More then likely no where but it wont deter me from doing what I feel is right.
For the poster who said "whats the big deal about 1.5 per thousand?"
I would ask you that if it were your family and there was drugs, wraps, unsafe conditions in which memebers of your bloodline were being forced to work and we were killing 1.5 of every thousand, would you accept it??? Especially if you had no say or choice in the matter? Would you accpet the answer that "well your family is bred for that...if they die then so be it"? What if its a close member of your family?? My point is ONE death that can be prevented is worth the effort.

[PaceAdvantage]

At one time there were numerous second careers race horses could persue. Pleasure horses, hunters, jumpers, dressage and even low level three day eventers. I'm not so sure if those channels still exist.Yes, those channels still exist, very much so....in fact, just the other day, I ran into a horse who used to go by the name of Jericho Turnpike....he raced on the NYRA circuit about two years ago....I remember the name because it is a very prominent road on Long Island....

JT is now a pleasure horse and he looks as good as ever.....

[Semipro]

Really? Those extra days he had grazing in the sun, nuzzling other horses, being with owners who loved him....that isn't better off than being dead and buried in the ground?

Such an odd look at the gift of life, whether it be an animal or not....but hey, to each his own I guess....Well i was originally going to agree with Dutchdude but after you put like that I'll have to do a 180.

[newtothegame]

Well...if nothing more, It would appear I at least got people talking...thinking...considering what happened yesterday. I know I am the new guy. And I also know I have no credibility here with alot of the "older" folks who have been here a while. But I do think it is for the betterment of the sport as well as the horses to discuss these issues.

I saw a post earlier about using the whips. How most on here thought the whip encouraged the horse to push him or herself to limits that might not normally be reached. I also saw where it was the horseman who had to make this change. Well there are emails..right?? Lets utilize the tools which have been given us. Prior to the internet it would of been a real challenge to reach some of the groups who might be able to help. Hell some of you are extreme whizzes with the computer...even design your own handicapping software...im sure you can find an email if you really wish to better the sport. Remember...
and I think I will take this as MY moniker from now on when I post...
"Without the horse...there is no sport for us"!!!!

[thespaah]

so then would we be making the assumptions that Trainers are to blame for these breakdowns? Please do not think I am being contrite in my responses. I am just seriously asking questions as I think we need to know. If this sport is to go on, we cant have what are percieved to be some of the best horses breakdown on national television much less anywhere else. If these are the "champion horses" what does that say for the lesser horses in the 5000 claimers?? My point is we need to find out why and FIX IT if this sport will ever return to its once greatness. It is our responsibility as horse lovers (as I am sure most here are) to fix the problems. How do we do that?? First it takes answers to mine as well as many other's questions. If trainers are the problem because they are "pushing to hard" then we have to address that issue. If its dirt versus poly, then thats an issue we have to address...If its breeding that possibly could be causing these breakdowns..again we need to address. How? I have no clue...but I promise not to stop looking for answers.

Now I know nascar is much different sport but look at what safety has done for it!!! It has become one of the biggest sports in the world and ALL THE MORE SAFER. There will always be an inherent danger in any sport but I believe it our responsibility to minimize those dangers no matter the cost for the true life blood of this sport. For all the power and speed possesd by the Throughbred Rcae horse , they are at times frail creatures. and to further leave you scratching you head,, they are quite resilient. Above all these horses are athletes. And as you know human athletes from time to time suffer carrer ending injuries. The same occurs in Throughbred and Standardbred racehorses. Unfortunately the Euqine physiology makes it almost impossible to save the animal's life in the event of a catostrophic injury.
One thing that is truly frsutrating is that when injured the horse cannot( obviously) tell it's human caregivers what is wrong.
Until ( if ever) new veteranary tecnologies and procedures are developed, massive breakdowns like the one suffered by Eight Belles will continue to occur. Hopefully not very often

[DJofSD]

I thought at one time that equine bone scans was going to allow undetected problems to be detected before a catastrophic breakdown occured. See this (http://www.diagnostic-services-inc.com/) web page for an example.

Any one know the current state of affairs when it comes to prophylatic scintigraphy?

[donnakeen]

In the XRD Results File BRIS assigns a value for finish position of 92 to identify horses that DNF (did not finish a race.) A horse can fail to finish a race for any number of reasons including bolting, a lost rider, clipped heels/fell, eased, saddle slipped, non catastrophic breakdown, and of course catastrophic breakdown. The finish position of 92 does not differentiate among the different reasons a horse can DNF. But to my knowledge it's the only indicator besides the chartcaller's comments in the file that points out cases when a horse fails to finish a race. If Bris had a specific data field for break downs I'd run numbers off that instead of finish position = 92.

Here is a simple breakdown by surface for horses that DNF (did not finish) their races in my calendar year 2007 database:

Calendar Year 2007 DNFs

SURFACE DNFs STARTERS PCT ODDS
---------- ---- -------- ----- ---------
ARTIFICIAL 239 38,877 .0062 1 in 162
TURF 344 39,112 .0088 1 in 112
PLAIN DIRT 1,628 149,014 .0109 1 in 90While I personally dislike artificial surfaces because they change the nature of the game, the above numbers do accurately reflect the percentages when it comes to horses failing to finish races on different surfaces.



posted by JMA:JMA, sharp post! I agree with you 100 pct. Artificial surfaces are just a band aid for a much bigger problem.




-jp

.
I believe we have weakened the breed with our technology. 20 years ago we wouldn't have been able to race a horse with a bad throat, sorry knees, or even thought about breeding a mare that was known to produce foals with terrible conformation. Now, thanks to technology, we have tie backs, tie forwards, myectomys, we have equine sports medicine and orthopedic surgeons, and we have periosteal stripping to correct angular limb deformities in foals.
20 years ago we bred the best to the best and the toughest to the toughest. Don't blame the surface. We need to look at our own breeding practices and take individual soundness into consideration before choosing a sire or a dam on just nicks and money earned.

[PurplePower]

Points well taken counselor. .......
I very much appreciate your comments Reid.Thank you pardner. I enjoyed our "paddock previews" on the balcony at Keeneland week before last, too.

[46zilzal]

The problem is IN the breed not on the track. Until that is fixed this will continue in varying degrees even if they ran of memory foam.

[Kelso]

20 years ago we bred the best to the best and the toughest to the toughest. Don't blame the surface. We need to look at our own breeding practices and take individual soundness into consideration before choosing a sire or a dam on just nicks and money earned.

Breeding malpractice ... the beginning, the end and the heart of the breakdown problem. Great post, Donnakeen! :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Rackon]

For all the power and speed possesd by the Throughbred Rcae horse , they are at times frail creatures. and to further leave you scratching you head,, they are quite resilient. Above all these horses are athletes. And as you know human athletes from time to time suffer carrer ending injuries. The same occurs in Throughbred and Standardbred racehorses. Unfortunately the Euqine physiology makes it almost impossible to save the animal's life in the event of a catostrophic injury.
One thing that is truly frsutrating is that when injured the horse cannot( obviously) tell it's human caregivers what is wrong.
Until ( if ever) new veteranary tecnologies and procedures are developed, massive breakdowns like the one suffered by Eight Belles will continue to occur. Hopefully not very often

You know, we've been in the Standardbred game since the early 70's. I've seen thousands of harness races and I've seldom seen a castrophic breakdown on the track - not at Balmoral, Sportsmans, Hoosier, Red Mile, Sciota, Lebanon, Meadowlands, IL/IN State Fair or Woodbine. There have been a few career ending injuries. Plus sore horses, bone chips, bad knees, lameness and buggy wrecks, but nothing like the number of breakdowns or career ending injuries I've seen in TBs, and I don't even own or race them - that's just as a fan and bettor!

I've been going to Keeneland and CD since I was five, a fan for 50 years, and while there were always isolated cases of breakdowns in the big Grade 1s, it seems to me that these breakdowns are occuring much more frequently in the elite thoroughbreds. And what's scary is that Chelokee and 8B were from excellent conditioning trainers, good guys who care about their horses. I gotta agree the breeding for speed over soundness is wreaking havoc with this sport.

StBs race on tracks like pavement in comparison to TBs, although they are a very hardy bunch, and it's not unusual for them to have 20-30 starts a year.

[WinterTriangle]

Injuries will happen regardless. We could just leave them in the barn...wait they kick their stalls and get injured... The better ones push their bodies to the limit and sometimes beyond...that's what we love about them..it's a sad fact
but a fact of life...

Stuball

I tend to be a little more pro-active.:) Improvements in any sport game can always be made, studied, etc.

I don't have the answers, of course. But evaluating and constantly troubleshooting your sport using TCM pays off. It pays off in reputation, credibility and overall longevity of your sport.

Yes, injuries will happen....that's true of any athlete whether it be human, canine, equine, etc. But one has to always ask what can be done to make things BETTER? Nobody should ever stop asking that question, and the more research and information we have, the more those questions will be better answered.

I'm not sure polytrack is the answer. I doubt it is. I believe the answer *may* lie more in breeding, moving the age of racing a horse out a bit, and possibly stop using performance enhancing drugs that *may* mask injuries.

I have had 2 knee surgeries....both of which I would not have had if I had paid attention to my pain and not kept getting cortisone shot into my knee so I could "keep going".

[slewis]

Please goto the following: www.rerun.org (http://www.rerun.org) and scroll down to "Big Truck".

This thread is a very difficult topic for everyone.

I've struggled with it many times myself. People will be mistreated on this planet.
Animals will be mistreated on this planet. No human or group can solve the worlds problems. We can only do what is morally right.
Sometimes there's a very fine line.
Too many unsound horses racing? How do you fill cards?
Several stated "breed the best to the best". Trust me, that's what they do in the industry, and there is still a tremendous horse shortage.
35,000 plus born each yr, and people complain of small fields.
I love when I read "back in the old days" BS. You mean when you had many fewer racing days (except NY) and few smaller tracks?
Sure, close Delaware and Monmouth and you'll have fuller fields at Belmont and Pimlico, but how do you tell those states not to grab their piece of the pie?? Purse competition, with the addition of slots at smaller tracks, creates opportunity for owners to race for bigger pots in other states aside from their own. I'd have no problem racing my mdn 35k claimer in a MdSpWt at Delaware for a $45,000 pot subsidized by slots, but NYRA then loses a starter from their races.
There are no easy solutions.

[jma]

agree with all of your points... point # 4 "'today's' trainers pushing to hard," seems to go contrary to the initial "They used to run 20 to 30 races a year and not break down", not these days; three races and you win the Derby. I believe the study of how tracks themselves changed in 100 years; the track of yesterday is not the track of today, technology has changed how tracks are put together maintenance of the tracks have also changed. Tracks are designed for faster times (except DMR & Turfway )in mind. So along with your excellent points I submit; understanding how tracks evolved over 100 year period.

What I was saying there was that I wouldn't *think* that nine races would be racing a horse too hard because horses handled a lot more races in the "old days". However, if the breed truly is weaker now (as it appears), then I guess you can't totally rule even a short campaign like that technically being "too hard". I certainly wouldn't call it abuse, but obviously some horses can't handle it. Something has changed from the old days, that's for certain.