Maybe PETA has a point ...

[JustRalph]

Put in a synth track and watch bettors drift away

[The_Turf_Monster]

Why am I not surprised to look up the pedigree and see Unbridled's Song in there?

[Sysonby]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Now we have jurisdictions moving entire meets to another locale (CD -> ELP) because a perfectly rational statistical probability occurred.

Did they ever find out the REASON for the cluster of breakdowns at CD?

I don't recall seeing any...so it's going to happen again someday...for no reason at all.

The majority of the horses that broke down at Churchill were found to have pre-existing injuries, should probably not have been entered to race in the first place. They're looking at increased vet scrutiny, taking away the purse for every horse in the race thing they'd been doing for awhile, and looking at technology that gives early indications if there's something off with the horse.

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Can you cite where these stats can be found? I don't recall seeing such evidence, although I'm sure it exists somewhere...I'd like to know the period of time that triggered the shift in training....and how excessive the death rate was and how it was attributed to how quickly a horse is run back.

In the meantime, I don't know if this was posted on this website earlier...I don't recall seeing it...another smashing PR success....

https://www.nj.com/sports/2023/07/de...racetrack.html

non-paywall link: https://archive.ph/Ynbfk

I have no personal knowledge about shifts in training. All we might have in terms of stats would be the high-level historical data which should show shorter careers, fewer starts in a horse's career over the the past 30 years and longer intervals between starts. Common sense will tell us that getting more races into a horse generates more money. If a horse could handle running every 7-10 days with the meds they're using these days then they would presumably be doing it. In theory a study could be done using the historical data but they'd have to sift through the sea of medications, noting dates certain ones became authorized and looking for evidence. One drug in particular Clenbuterol introduction should be easy enough to dig up and look for an increase in heart attacks since that date. The trouble is who would do such a study? I don't know who inside the sport is looking at these things or who would pay them to. Maybe studies have been done internally and not released to the public. Hard to say but if we can't find the stats we probably shouldn't be surprised. What we may be able to do with data I have at my disposal would be to look at horses off of significant tops on short rest and follow them until their careers end. If we were to find the number of subsequent starts is significantly less that may indicate more rest is needed however even if we find that more rest is 'needed' it doesn't tell us why, that's really what I'm interested in getting to the bottom of.

[pandy]

What I find disappointing is that we still don't know so much. For instance, many of us who've been following racing for a long time think that there were fewer breakdowns years ago, even though the horses raced more often then. Is that true? I don't know for sure because I haven't seen any data from the 70's and 80's.

And even though some tracks have created a protocol that lowered fatal breakdowns, the sport, in general, has never studied the situation so we could get an idea of why the horses break down. We still don't know if inbreeding speed and speed pedigrees in general are creating horses that are more prone to injuries.

We don't know if racing horses less frequently is part of the problem. I see 3yo's with 4 starts going into GR1 races like the Kentucky Derby and I think, Do they have enough foundation? We don't know, there's no data.

We also don't know if lasix and other drugs are causing problems.

One thing we do know, Tapeta is a much safer racing surface than dirt. The data is very clear on that, and Tapeta has the advantage of never having to race on sealed or "off" race tracks.

I haven't seen data comparing Tapeta to Turf but my guess is that Tapeta will prove to be safer than most turf courses. Turf is inconsistent. I've seen stretches at Belmont during a drought where it was hard and lightning-fast. And then after heavy rains, it's deep and yielding. After a day of racing on soft turf, there are patches of grass that get kicked up, leaving holes. I've seen track crews putting sod down, and that's not secure yet they run on it a few days later.

As for some of the other comments on here, canceling on bad weather days would pretty much end racing in the Northeast.

Shutting down the sport doesn't make sense either. If racehorses could talk, I don't think most of them would want their breed to be eliminated.

[lagavulin62]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

I don't ascribe to the idea that horses take bad steps or that a surface is at fault for breakdowns in some cases yet other races go off fine.

The American thoroughbred bloodstock went down the toilet for a couple generations due to drugs, legal and otherwise, as we encouraged speed and fragility over stamina and strength. It's been a vicious circle that owners, trainers, breeders, and racing jurisdictions have created for themselves.

American bloodstock was the best in the world but we've bred the best out, I can't even begin to think of how to fix that outside of importing bloodstock from Europe and Australia and restricting races only to those offspring they produce. Good luck with that.

That’s always been my view. Too much speed breeding and the drugs. Just ban most of those drugs and breed for stamina. Offer more races at 1.5 miles and more.

As far as those that don’t understand it’s hopeless. They want horse racing banned because that’s what they do. “Ban everything we don’t like.” That’s how they operate.

I don’t like that fake dirt. The solution is breeding and get rid of those drugs. Train better. I don’t think its much different than human training for those that still run. I mean if you ever ran track and understand training you probably know it doesn’t seem right the way they do these horses.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Off topic a bit, but I wonder if the dirt / turf breakdown numbers are skewed a bit because of how rarely we run on turf that isn't at worse good and mostly firm. In addition, the times the races are moved from turf, it is largely to a less that great dirt surface.

With the shortage of horses these days, is it the end of the world if we cancel on bad weather days? I know all the arguments against, but there are plenty for as well, namely safety of horse and rider.

The EID has enough starts on all surfaces that all stats are statistically significant, therefore not skewed. However, your comment raises an interesting point to perhaps have one additional category which is the injury rate in dirt races originally scheduled for turf to compare to straight dirt and straight turf. I imagine it's not hard to break out those numbers.

[castaway01]

I can't find the article, but recently there was a study that showed that inbreeding has also lowered the soundness of thoroughbreds. The drugs and modern surgical procedures have also enabled fast but unsound horses to have productive, if short careers. Breeders then use them to breed even more fast, unsound horses that are quick but fragile. The same thing happened with some breeds of dogs, where people wanted a certain "look" and basically bred vision and gait problems into the bloodline (bulldogs for one example).

The way to fix it is to breed using sires that have healthy, sound offspring with stamina. Problem is, those offspring aren't going to win many of the tons of sprints we run to suit the horses we've already bred for speed only. And around and around we go....

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Put in a synth track and watch bettors drift away

It's a bad choice between bettors drifting away and the public (betting and non betting) shutting down racing through government.


However, if given that choice I'd take letting some bettors drift away because of all-weather surfaces than racing shutting down, given the economic engine it provides in many states.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by pandy

What I find disappointing is that we still don't know so much. For instance, many of us who've been following racing for a long time think that there were fewer breakdowns years ago, even though the horses raced more often then. Is that true? I don't know for sure because I haven't seen any data from the 70's and 80's.

I think there absolutely were not fewer breakdowns before records were compiled in one place and that's specifically why the Equine Injury Database was started in 2009.


Perhaps a statistician can opine whether the downward trend from 2 fatalities per 1000 starts in 2009 to 1.25 in 2022 suggests it is even possible the number was lower before 2009, but it sure doesn't seem that way.



https://jockeyclub.com/pdfs/eid_14_year_tables.pdf

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

I think there absolutely were not fewer breakdowns before records were compiled in one place and that's specifically why the Equine Injury Database was started in 2009.


Perhaps a statistician can opine whether the downward trend from 2 fatalities per 1000 starts in 2009 to 1.25 in 2022 suggests it is even possible the number was lower before 2009, but it sure doesn't seem that way.



https://jockeyclub.com/pdfs/eid_14_year_tables.pdf

2 to 1.25 in 13 years is a remarkable achievement...which should actually be celebrated.

Instead, we're freaking out again (and by we're, I mean PETA, the ignorant masses and the media in some respect).

[pandy]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

I think there absolutely were not fewer breakdowns before records were compiled in one place and that's specifically why the Equine Injury Database was started in 2009.


Perhaps a statistician can opine whether the downward trend from 2 fatalities per 1000 starts in 2009 to 1.25 in 2022 suggests it is even possible the number was lower before 2009, but it sure doesn't seem that way.



https://jockeyclub.com/pdfs/eid_14_year_tables.pdf

I started to follow racing in 1971. Back then, thoroughbreds raced much more often, I believe twice as many starts on average, and with less time in between starts. There seemed to be less injuries in general. For instance, if you just look at the best racehorses, now when a star emerges, I expect that there will be very few chances to actually see the horse race. Some of that is because the owners just want to retire horses and make money breeding. But look at all of the 2yo and 3yo's that run a few fast races and then are quickly retired because of injury. I don't think that happened as often years ago. And then look at the top horses and how often they raced years ago. Will we ever have another Kelso (63 starts)...Forego (57 starts)...John Henry (83 starts)...Sea Biscuit (89 starts)...Citation (45 starts)? Even Cigar (33) and Affirmed (29) raced more than most top horses these days.

[cj]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

2 to 1.25 in 13 years is a remarkable achievement...which should actually be celebrated.

Instead, we're freaking out again (and by we're, I mean PETA, the ignorant masses and the media in some respect).

BINGO! This is exactly what I was saying.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

The EID has enough starts on all surfaces that all stats are statistically significant, therefore not skewed. However, your comment raises an interesting point to perhaps have one additional category which is the injury rate in dirt races originally scheduled for turf to compare to straight dirt and straight turf. I imagine it's not hard to break out those numbers.

We need to break the stats out by track condition. I've never seen dirt broken out by fast, wet fast, muddy, sloppy, etc. I only see dirt all lumped together. I have to believe a much greater percentage of dirt races are run on tracks other than fast than turf are run on other than firm. And we know, turf track conditions are a lot more subjective and if the turf condition is comparable to sloppy or muddy on dirt, it is rarely ever used.

[cj]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

I think there absolutely were not fewer breakdowns before records were compiled in one place and that's specifically why the Equine Injury Database was started in 2009.


Perhaps a statistician can opine whether the downward trend from 2 fatalities per 1000 starts in 2009 to 1.25 in 2022 suggests it is even possible the number was lower before 2009, but it sure doesn't seem that way.



https://jockeyclub.com/pdfs/eid_14_year_tables.pdf

I think there little to no chance there were less breakdowns before the EID began.