California: Latest horse fatality statistics fuel more debate!

[andymays]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/24/latest-fatality-statistics-fuel-debate/

Excerpt:

California horse racing reported more racehorse deaths over the previous two years, 645, than any other reported two-year period, according to data released yesterday in the annual report by the California Horse Racing Board.

Excerpt:

“The sooner (synthetic tracks) are gone, the better,” trainer Bob Baffert said yesterday. “They didn’t perform like they were supposed to, and they need a lot of maintenance. It’s something we’ve all been struggling with.”

[andymays]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/24/latest-fatality-statistics-fuel-debate/

HORSE RACING DEATHS

Following are thoroughbred fatalities in California over the past 10 years. A change in the way the CHRB calculated each racing year resulted in some horse deaths in the second half of 2007 appearing twice in the totals. Synthetic tracks were mandated at major tracks in California starting in 2007.

July 2008-June 2009: 320

July 2007-June 2008: 325

Nov. 2006-Nov. 2007: 301

Nov. 2005-Nov. 2006: 317

Nov. 2004-Nov. 2005: 320

Nov. 2003-Nov. 2004: 243

Nov. 2002-Nov. 2003: 229

Nov. 2001-Nov. 2002: 257

Nov. 2000-Nov. 2001: 236

Nov. 1999-Nov. 2000: 259

[FenceBored]

You're missing the big news out of this report ... turf racing fatalities are off 67% year to year (21 down to 7). Clearly the new turf courses that were mandated are working their charms. Oh, wait ...

[andymays]

We finally get an honest article out of the San Diego Union.

A little confusing but we do know that despite new synthetic material and new bases the synthetic surfaces haven’t performed too well! :ThmbDown:

What a surprise! :eek:

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/24/latest-fatality-statistics-fuel-debate/

HORSE RACING DEATHS

Following are thoroughbred fatalities in California over the past 10 years. A change in the way the CHRB calculated each racing year resulted in some horse deaths in the second half of 2007 appearing twice in the totals. Synthetic tracks were mandated at major tracks in California starting in 2007.

July 2008-June 2009: 320

July 2007-June 2008: 325

Nov. 2006-Nov. 2007: 301

Nov. 2005-Nov. 2006: 317

Nov. 2004-Nov. 2005: 320

Nov. 2003-Nov. 2004: 243

Nov. 2002-Nov. 2003: 229

Nov. 2001-Nov. 2002: 257

Nov. 2000-Nov. 2001: 236

Nov. 1999-Nov. 2000: 259

Interesting, compelling data Andy.

I guess that a case can still be made that no matter what the surface is, regardless of if you ban steroids, change farrier habits, get accredited by an NTRA safety committee, etc....

...at the end of the day - an unsound horse is an unsound horse. You can run them on this drug or that surface or no drug with perfect shoes... but you still have an unsound horse. I'm hard-pressed to believe that with all of the money spent to superficially make racing safer, the same money wouldn't have gone much farther targetting specifically the actual horses themselves, evaluations and greater scrutiny.

I'm not implying that some of the policies aren't good policy with tangible benefits, but it just seems the major part of the equation got overlooked, or ignored, in all of the 'fixing of the problem'.

[andymays]

Interesting, compelling data Andy.

I guess that a case can still be made that no matter what the surface is, regardless of if you ban steroids, change farrier habits, get accredited by an NTRA safety committee, etc....

...at the end of the day - an unsound horse is an unsound horse. You can run them on this drug or that surface or no drug with perfect shoes... but you still have an unsound horse. I'm hard-pressed to believe that with all of the money spent to superficially make racing safer, the same money wouldn't have gone much farther targetting specifically the actual horses themselves, evaluations and greater scrutiny.

I'm not implying that some of the policies aren't good policy with tangible benefits, but it just seems the major part of the equation got overlooked, or ignored, in all of the 'fixing of the problem'.


I guess you could say that if those practices were stopped in 2005 we would be saying that dirt is way more safe than synthetics.

Synthetic surfaces = FRAUD! (in my not so humble opinion of course) ;)

[rwwupl]

I am looking forward to how the spinmasters for the synthetics will turn this into another victory for science...and synthetics.

I want to hear another rant for safety,that only the synthetics can provide.

What a relief for most to get back to a dirt surface. :)

[Igeteven]

How many horses made it back to the barn never to race again on these plastic tracks ?

Does anyone know.

[joanied]

Jeeze...those stats are scary...I sure liked what Baffert said...at any rate, going back to dirt, is still what I want to see out there...it'll have to be perfect, and if they do dirt right, it'll be so much better for the horses....
but...jonhannibalsmith hit the nail on the head...I beleive that greater scrutiny of horses must be implemented...if they have to hire more vets, so be it...but every single horse must be checked over with a fine toothed comb the day before he races...and then another check on race day...it may be difficult to do, but not impossible...this way if there is even a hint of unsoundness, it should be picked up by the vet.

[andymays]

I think the CHRB should issue a dirt mandate for all California Tracks. ;)

[razzle]

Think of the irony if synthetic surfaces were something that racing jurisdictions threw at the drug problem, and Baffert was one of the main reasons it was necessary.

[andymays]

I spoke with the reporter who wrote the article. He's already getting blowback from the big shots. Amazing.

[FenceBored]

I spoke with the reporter who wrote the article. He's already getting blowback from the big shots. Amazing.

Why, he included all of Dr. Rick's talking points, what more do they expect?

[andymays]

Advertising dollars. Between the Indian Casinos wrecking peoples lives and the Del Mar B.S. the San Diego Union has to watch what they say. They are in a bind for money.

I told him by puttin up the link on Pace Advantage and then the Paulick report he would get a lot more exposure than just the San Diego Union.

It's been two years at least since they had an article with anything resembling the truth.

[DJofSD]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/24/latest-fatality-statistics-fuel-debate/

HORSE RACING DEATHS

Following are thoroughbred fatalities in California over the past 10 years. A change in the way the CHRB calculated each racing year resulted in some horse deaths in the second half of 2007 appearing twice in the totals. Synthetic tracks were mandated at major tracks in California starting in 2007.

July 2008-June 2009: 320

July 2007-June 2008: 325

Nov. 2006-Nov. 2007: 301

Nov. 2005-Nov. 2006: 317

Nov. 2004-Nov. 2005: 320

Nov. 2003-Nov. 2004: 243

Nov. 2002-Nov. 2003: 229

Nov. 2001-Nov. 2002: 257

Nov. 2000-Nov. 2001: 236

Nov. 1999-Nov. 2000: 259

Raw numbers by themselves do not tell the entire story. What was the horse population each of those years? How many horses died in as a direct result of training or racing?

[andymays]

Raw numbers by themselves do not tell the entire story. What was the horse population each of those years? How many horses died in as a direct result of training or racing?


Forget the Horses how about the people for once. They killed me. ;)

[Stillriledup]

I spoke with the reporter who wrote the article. He's already getting blowback from the big shots. Amazing.

No more free doughnuts for him in the Del Mar cafeteria. :(

[FenceBored]

Raw numbers by themselves do not tell the entire story. What was the horse population each of those years? How many horses died in as a direct result of training or racing?

If you want to stick your head in the wax-coated-carpet-fiber-and-silca mixture, that's your perogative. ;)