Maybe PETA has a point ...

[MJC922]

I still suspect there could be some medication or combination which is interfering with post-race recovery to some extent. It seems to happen to horses coming off a top effort more so than just any other random race. That points to recovery IMO. I don't buy into surfaces or genetics. At least not from the get-go anyway, that would be way down on my list of suspects. I would try to rule out medications first and that would involve a complex root cause analysis. You'd have to have access to the vet's records on all of these horses. I'd also check with the farrier too, I'd want to rule out the possibility that nothing different is being tried or used that's somehow new and different. It's unlikely but I'd look at it just for due diligence, anything whatsoever different with the alloy that would change the amount of friction with the surface or the degree of flex. Especially when two horses broke down from the same trainer in consecutive races there's just too much commonality there. Again I'm not saying it's the trainer in any of these cases.

[Aerocraft67]

This is actually a good thread. It's helped me sort out a view on this. Unfortunately I'm finding it harder to justify.

Society applies morals to animal welfare inconsistently. We have big differences in individual opinion. But there is an aggregate tolerance that sorts out, and it's shifting toward animal welfare. That's a fundamental headwind for thoroughbred racing to face, never mind from shaky ground.

The shift toward animal welfare is pretty comprehensive, but growing particularly intolerant of livestock for sport and entertainment. That's a tougher cause to justify than food or scientific research, which get plenty of their own scrutiny.

We don't tolerate dog or cock fighting and barely tolerate dog racing. We've driven out performance animals from circuses and aquariums. We eschew selectively bred pets in favor of rescuing them from a shelter.

Even modern zoos are under scrutiny for keeping animals in unnatural duress, despite their noble intentions to achieve a reasonable net benefit in awareness, science, and husbandry.

We're much more conscious of our food supply. We still eat otherwise intelligent pigs and octopi that don't capture our hearts like dogs, but we've reduced industrial practices that pose undue cruelty (not to mention unsustainability).

I wouldn't dismiss those trends as particularly extreme, even if some started that way. That's just where we're at.

The horse racing apologist is up against it. It's hard to justify involuntary demise for sport, not to mention spectacular breakdowns in the most elite events.

Nevertheless, I concur with more transparency. Before we can what's acceptable, let's agree on what it is, and how it compares to other livestock enterprises. Transparency is unnerving, but it's not like obfuscation will garner more acceptance.

Looks like U.S. thoroughbred racing fares worse than other jurisdictions, but has improved over time. Would be good to firm up the reason for the underperformance in fatality rate and factors for further improvement.

There may be operational improvements in training and surface, but the arguments here about breeding seem most compelling. American thoroughbreds are bred to produce a particular high performance at the expense of fragility. That expense has risen too high.

Transparency about the life cycle is harder to acknowledge. Like the adage about sausage and legislation. The more you know how it's made, the less you appreciate it.

Thoroughbreds have a life cycle that ends in catastrophic injury for some, and the slaughterhouse for many, as with other livestock. We can all judge our tolerance for that. But let's be honest about it and not put ourselves through pearl-clutching shock every time we consider it (that one's for you, PA). Ironically, transparency would reduce that.

You still wind up with existential questions to answer. Yes, thoroughbreds only exist to race, part a long and broad tradition of selective animal breeding and husbandry. The life cycle for most ends bluntly with that career accordingly. That's logical, but is it justifiable?

I think the consensus answer is increasingly, "no." The more awareness builds, the less tradition justifies it, given the shifting cultural sentiment.

One last anecdote. I love fishing even more than horse racing. I've never questioned the noble quest of man vs. nature, given the merit of sustainable culling and best catch & release practices. Now we question catch & release as unwarranted recreational fish torture, or at least "playing with your food" that should be harvested purposefully and expeditiously. Maybe similar to fox and bear hunting with dogs vs. a sharp demise with one ballistic shot.

A generous application of that reasoning to horse racing is that despite grand tradition and cycle-of-life realities, you've unjustifiably created, cultivated, and destroyed an animal for your amusement and profit (as opposed to survival). Seems like a stretch to define that profit as just another way to make a living. Or that breeding them stronger makes it O.K.

Like y'all said, this topic just doesn't end well. Maybe someone can take a better turn as apologist here. At the very least, I think it's fair to say we're coming up short of society's expectations here, and need to conspicuously improve.

[Boomer]

143
182
109
168
120
258


Just a random race and the lifetime starts of races 6 warriors racing today in Race 4 at Pocono Downs.


Sure, I understand runners are much harder on their spindly legs and all the other excuses for these horses having such short careers. I have stopped playing the tbreds completely. They are unpredictable due to their soundness issues and most are sent to slaughter way to young. Or have a big FOR SALE sign put on their head as they make their way to Mountaineer or Puerto Rico to fit a condition or two and then go out to pasture....no no I mean slaughter.


And stop with the we love our horses BS. Some of my posts years ago pointed out how one of the talking heads on America Races show jammed a lame one into a race at NYRA to get claimed. They all do it, despite how much money they have in the bank.


And the fragile legged undefeated stars we saw go down at the Spa nearing the finish line is the result of breeding for pure unadulterated speed on legs that just cannot handle it.


Any horse that dies on the track should undergo a detailed necropsy at Cornell University

[horsefan2019]

Originally Posted by Aerocraft67

This is actually a good thread. It's helped me sort out a view on this. Unfortunately I'm finding it harder to justify.

Society applies morals to animal welfare inconsistently. We have big differences in individual opinion. But there is an aggregate tolerance that sorts out, and it's shifting toward animal welfare. That's a fundamental headwind for thoroughbred racing to face, never mind from shaky ground.

The shift toward animal welfare is pretty comprehensive, but growing particularly intolerant of livestock for sport and entertainment. That's a tougher cause to justify than food or scientific research, which get plenty of their own scrutiny.

We don't tolerate dog or cock fighting and barely tolerate dog racing. We've driven out performance animals from circuses and aquariums. We eschew selectively bred pets in favor of rescuing them from a shelter.

Even modern zoos are under scrutiny for keeping animals in unnatural duress, despite their noble intentions to achieve a reasonable net benefit in awareness, science, and husbandry.

We're much more conscious of our food supply. We still eat otherwise intelligent pigs and octopi that don't capture our hearts like dogs, but we've reduced industrial practices that pose undue cruelty (not to mention unsustainability).

I wouldn't dismiss those trends as particularly extreme, even if some started that way. That's just where we're at.

The horse racing apologist is up against it. It's hard to justify involuntary demise for sport, not to mention spectacular breakdowns in the most elite events.

Nevertheless, I concur with more transparency. Before we can what's acceptable, let's agree on what it is, and how it compares to other livestock enterprises. Transparency is unnerving, but it's not like obfuscation will garner more acceptance.

Looks like U.S. thoroughbred racing fares worse than other jurisdictions, but has improved over time. Would be good to firm up the reason for the underperformance in fatality rate and factors for further improvement.

There may be operational improvements in training and surface, but the arguments here about breeding seem most compelling. American thoroughbreds are bred to produce a particular high performance at the expense of fragility. That expense has risen too high.

Transparency about the life cycle is harder to acknowledge. Like the adage about sausage and legislation. The more you know how it's made, the less you appreciate it.

Thoroughbreds have a life cycle that ends in catastrophic injury for some, and the slaughterhouse for many, as with other livestock. We can all judge our tolerance for that. But let's be honest about it and not put ourselves through pearl-clutching shock every time we consider it (that one's for you, PA). Ironically, transparency would reduce that.

You still wind up with existential questions to answer. Yes, thoroughbreds only exist to race, part a long and broad tradition of selective animal breeding and husbandry. The life cycle for most ends bluntly with that career accordingly. That's logical, but is it justifiable?

I think the consensus answer is increasingly, "no." The more awareness builds, the less tradition justifies it, given the shifting cultural sentiment.

One last anecdote. I love fishing even more than horse racing. I've never questioned the noble quest of man vs. nature, given the merit of sustainable culling and best catch & release practices. Now we question catch & release as unwarranted recreational fish torture, or at least "playing with your food" that should be harvested purposefully and expeditiously. Maybe similar to fox and bear hunting with dogs vs. a sharp demise with one ballistic shot.

A generous application of that reasoning to horse racing is that despite grand tradition and cycle-of-life realities, you've unjustifiably created, cultivated, and destroyed an animal for your amusement and profit (as opposed to survival). Seems like a stretch to define that profit as just another way to make a living. Or that breeding them stronger makes it O.K.

Like y'all said, this topic just doesn't end well. Maybe someone can take a better turn as apologist here. At the very least, I think it's fair to say we're coming up short of society's expectations here, and need to conspicuously improve.

You did a better comprehensive summary of where American society is going than I would've. What we've seen is greyhound racing get banned, the circus banned from using animals, whales and dolphins phased out from performing and now their coming after horse racing. Anybody who thinks they can just proceed with business as usual like the 70's and 80's doesn't realize that that the general public has less tolerance for animals dying to entertain us. So you either clean up the sport or watch it slowly die as they come after you via lobbyists, lawmakers, or land developers.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

You did a better comprehensive summary of where American society is going than I would've. What we've seen is greyhound racing get banned, the circus banned from using animals, whales and dolphins phased out from performing and now their coming after horse racing. Anybody who thinks they can just proceed with business as usual like the 70's and 80's doesn't realize that that the general public has less tolerance for animals dying to entertain us. So you either clean up the sport or watch it slowly die as they come after you via lobbyists, lawmakers, or land developers.

You and Aerocraft are exactly right . This is where society is at . I’m a dinosaur, I said that . I really have no dog in the fight . Present day society will decide the fate of racing horses . But these people that say the horses are not attached or loved by most of their connections are nuts . They never worked back there and it’s ignorant to say that . They see the bad news of greed and cheats but the great majority are the opposite . Many of these people are animal lovers , there’s goats, ponies and cats back there . I’ve seen the owners and trainers faces here when their horses go down . It’s a tragedy , a loss most of them are sick when it happens . People on the backstretch are crying . The media is not an accurate portrayal of what really goes on . Of course, there are crooks …… ban them . There are some of the nicest , hardest working people you will ever meet back there too.
Shawn Clancy was in the show this morning. Jockey , writer and owner . He was honest and upfront . You can tell he cares about these horses . And he admitted this business will “bring you to your knees”. That’s what most of them go thru when this happens. He justifies his living by thinking are these horses better with me or without me ? Face it , who else is going to care for them ? PETA? They’ll be non existent. But once people can’t take the part you guys said about society. It will probably be over . It’s a shift , but some of the things people are saying is total crap. Spend a day or two back there at 5 am. You will see .

[Johnny V]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

PETA is a dirty racket. Fuck PETA.

My sentiments exactly.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by MJC922

I still suspect there could be some medication or combination which is interfering with post-race recovery to some extent. It seems to happen to horses coming off a top effort more so than just any other random race. That points to recovery IMO.

Throrograph keeps suggesting more of these breakdowns come off tops than bad races. I was always skeptical because so many tops come with very easy trips where the horse was not even fully extended, but there could be a subset of tops that are draining and damaging.

It also would not shock me if all the medications and environmental toxins are having a negative impact not only on the horses but humans too. They could even be doing long term genetic damage and not just bone damage.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by bisket

Making Irad Ortiz a star in spite of his behavior on the track shows that racing in the state of New York just doesn’t get the sentiments of a growing percentage of their customers

What have you done to make sure he never rides again?

How do you view Angel Cordero Jr?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Sheffwed

I will ask again - what purpose the horse in the modern world - that said our horses deserve so much better - and anyone who cares should stop wagering on NYRA races at once, think about Woodbine where the horses don't just collapse regularly for example - make no mistake, NYRA should have its license to operate examined, let alone being trusted with 400-500m USD of NY State taxpayer money while they have already destroyed Belmont and oversee the global jewel of racing having its worst meet in its history by far and they seem utterly clueless as to how unsafe their surfaces have become, or do they simply not care?

This made me laugh

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

You did a better comprehensive summary of where American society is going than I would've. What we've seen is greyhound racing get banned, the circus banned from using animals, whales and dolphins phased out from performing and now their coming after horse racing. Anybody who thinks they can just proceed with business as usual like the 70's and 80's doesn't realize that that the general public has less tolerance for animals dying to entertain us. So you either clean up the sport or watch it slowly die as they come after you via lobbyists, lawmakers, or land developers.

Keep enabling these types to hold that much power - and then see what happens.

American society?

I'll let you in on a secret. AMERICAN SOCIETY is very apathetic when it comes to racing...ie...they don't give two shits about it.

Except on very big days like the Triple Crown races...and then the BC (but nowhere near as interested compared to the TC races).

That's it...other then that, they don't care...and it shows.

Now...who exactly is going to force the closure of racing?

AMERICAN SOCIETY?

Not a chance.

A vocal minority of radicals? Now we're talking. And you're going to help them do it....good job.

But don't gaslight me and tell me AMERICAN SOCIETY is clamoring for racing to end.

If that were the case, no celebrities would be showing up on NBC on Derby Day and the infields wouldn't be filled with young people getting drunk and high year after year.

[PaceAdvantage]

I've said it before recently and I'll say it again.

THE RACING INDUSTRY has DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED when it comes to horse deaths over the past 10-15 years.

Look at the stats. It cannot be denied, even by those clamoring for NYRA to have its license examined...

[horsefan2019]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Keep enabling these types to hold that much power - and then see what happens.

American society?

I'll let you in on a secret. AMERICAN SOCIETY is very apathetic when it comes to racing...ie...they don't give two shits about it.

Except on very big days like the Triple Crown races...and then the BC (but nowhere near as interested compared to the TC races).

That's it...other then that, they don't care...and it shows.

Now...who exactly is going to force the closure of racing?

AMERICAN SOCIETY?

Not a chance.

A vocal minority of radicals? Now we're talking. And you're going to help them do it....good job.

But don't gaslight me and tell me AMERICAN SOCIETY is clamoring for racing to end.

If that were the case, no celebrities would be showing up on NBC on Derby Day and the infields wouldn't be filled with young people getting drunk and high year after year.

So basically they care one day out of the year. And even then most of the people there are there for the party and could care less who wins. If horse racing were to disappear they would just find another party somewhere else.
BTW, the people killing horse racing are in the industry. They own the tracks. They would sell out the land from under the track if someone else writes enough 0's on that check and theres nothing you or me could do about it.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

So basically they care one day out of the year. And even then most of the people there are there for the party and could care less who wins. If horse racing were to disappear they would just find another party somewhere else.
BTW, the people killing horse racing are in the industry. They own the tracks. They would sell out the land from under the track if someone else writes enough 0's on that check and theres nothing you or me could do about it.

That's always been a fact of life. There have been many a track owned by entities that sold out for a better offer. That's capitlism.

If it were more profitable to run a meet, the track would still be around.

Do you think 1.25 deaths per 1,000 starts is the reason some owners found it more profitable to sell?

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I've said it before recently and I'll say it again.

THE RACING INDUSTRY has DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED when it comes to horse deaths over the past 10-15 years.

Look at the stats. It cannot be denied, even by those clamoring for NYRA to have its license examined...

The "Racing Industry" has dramatically improved by accident more than some grand plan they implemented. When we look at the decline in deaths per 1K, I reckon that the decline is wholly attributable to collapse of bull ring and cheap racing.

Here's some stats

(for this that follow me, here's a url:

Twitter

)

2009 - 395K total starts, 205K starts at $10K or less, 51.8% of all starts, 2.0 fatality rate.
2010 - 387K, 198K, 51.2%, 1.88
2011 - 379K, 190K, 50.2%, 1.88
2012 - 369K, 176K, 47.8%, 1.92
2013 - 339K, 165K, 48.8%, 1.90
2014 - 308K, 146K, 47.5%, 1.89
2015 - 299K, 138K, 46.2%, 1.62
2016 - 314K, 135K, 43.2%, 1.54
2017 - 305K, 129K, 42.3%, 1.61
2018 - 293K, 123K, 42.2%, 1.68
2019 - 288K, 115K, 39.9%, 1.53
2020 - 236K, 88K, 37.5%, 1.41
2021 - 264K, 91K, 34.4%, 1.39
2022 - 262K, 78K, 29.8%, 1.25

What you see here is that cheap racing died at the scale it had previous enjoyed 15 years ago. Along with it, as the cheap claimers have fewer places to run, there is fewer deaths. I don't need to tell the people on this forum who've played MNR or CT - places that used to conduct thousands of races a year and no longer do - how many breakdowns you've seen at these tracks. You've seen it. Cheap speed is essentially death on the race track.

But the "racing industry" has said that this improvement is because of policies they've implemented. I don't buy it. The racing landscape has changed. There are fewer B & C tracks and those tracks are running fewer races than before. That's where the "improvement" has happened. All the other stuff is likely marginal - vet checks, PET scans, whatever the du jour thing they trumpet.

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Keep enabling these types to hold that much power - and then see what happens.

American society?

I'll let you in on a secret. AMERICAN SOCIETY is very apathetic when it comes to racing...ie...they don't give two shits about it.

Except on very big days like the Triple Crown races...and then the BC (but nowhere near as interested compared to the TC races).

That's it...other then that, they don't care...and it shows.

Now...who exactly is going to force the closure of racing?

AMERICAN SOCIETY?

Not a chance.

A vocal minority of radicals? Now we're talking. And you're going to help them do it....good job.

But don't gaslight me and tell me AMERICAN SOCIETY is clamoring for racing to end.

If that were the case, no celebrities would be showing up on NBC on Derby Day and the infields wouldn't be filled with young people getting drunk and high year after year.

I think this is true. However *apathy* is a knife that cuts both ways and the problem for racing is that it is inexorably tied to government and politics. When these political issues get put to the people, their apathy shows up at the ballot box. Greyhound racing got absolutely creamed when put to a vote in Florida of all places. You can assume the same would be true if T-bred racing was put to a vote in California. Do I think it's all doom and gloom? No. But while apathy can be your friend it can also be your enemy.

---

Last edited by o_crunk; 08-27-2023 at 08:19 PM. Reason: don't know why URL are not showing up but whatever. If you follow me, you've likely seen my charts on this.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

The "Racing Industry" has dramatically improved by accident more than some grand plan they implemented. When we look at the decline in deaths per 1K, I reckon that the decline is wholly attributable to collapse of bull ring and cheap racing.

Here's some stats

(for this that follow me, here's a url: https://twitter.com/o_crunk/status/1637823027269312512 )

2009 - 395K total starts, 205K starts at $10K or less, 51.8% of all starts, 2.0 fatality rate.
2010 - 387K, 198K, 51.2%, 1.88
2011 - 379K, 190K, 50.2%, 1.88
2012 - 369K, 176K, 47.8%, 1.92
2013 - 339K, 165K, 48.8%, 1.90
2014 - 308K, 146K, 47.5%, 1.89
2015 - 299K, 138K, 46.2%, 1.62
2016 - 314K, 135K, 43.2%, 1.54
2017 - 305K, 129K, 42.3%, 1.61
2018 - 293K, 123K, 42.2%, 1.68
2019 - 288K, 115K, 39.9%, 1.53
2020 - 236K, 88K, 37.5%, 1.41
2021 - 264K, 91K, 34.4%, 1.39
2022 - 262K, 78K, 29.8%, 1.25

What you see here is that cheap racing died at the scale it had previous enjoyed 15 years ago. Along with it, as the cheap claimers have fewer places to run, there is fewer deaths. I don't need to tell the people on this forum who've played MNR or CT - places that used to conduct thousands of races a year and no longer do - how many breakdowns you've seen at these tracks. You've seen it. Cheap speed is essentially death on the race track.

But the "racing industry" has said that this improvement is because of policies they've implemented. I don't buy it. The racing landscape has changed. There are fewer B & C tracks and those tracks are running fewer races than before. That's where the "improvement" has happened. All the other stuff is likely marginal - vet checks, PET scans, whatever the du jour thing they trumpet.



I think this is true. However *apathy* is a knife that cuts both ways and the problem for racing is that it is inexorably tied to government and politics. When these political issues get put to the people, their apathy shows up at the ballot box. Greyhound racing got absolutely creamed when put to a vote in Florida of all places. You can assume the same would be true if T-bred racing was put to a vote in California. Do I think it's all doom and gloom? No. But while apathy can be your friend it can also be your enemy.

I think you have to look at these things on case by case basis.If a horse is running well at Belmont for 25k and 2 months later is struggling in a 4k claimer at Penn National you don't blame the track or "cheap racing"-you blame the people involved.