Feinstein Wants Santa Anita Halted

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

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]

[QUOTE=FenceBored;2474263]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?[/QUOTE]

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

It's worth trying to find out.

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It's worth trying to find out.

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

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

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?



-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]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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.