Maybe PETA has a point ...

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

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

While the headline number suggests a decrease of fatalities per 1000 starters from 2009 (1.9995) to 2022 (1.2483) supporting the safety case, here are some points not able to be analyzed through this data.

[1] With a decrease in starter count from 2009 (395,897) to 2022 (262,761), what is the count correlation to lower level tracks closing? The implication is that more infirm horses were being forced off the track earlier, thereby decreasing the on-track fatality count?

[2] If the same safety methodologies are being put in place across the sport, why are there differing decrease rates in fatalities per 1000 starts across surfaces?

Turf : 2009 (1.9359) to 2022 (0.9938) = -(48.66%)
Dirt : 2009 (2.1036) to 2022 (1.4421) = -(31.45%)
Syn : 2009 (1.4877) to 2022 (0.4046) = -(72.80%)

Statistically speaking, the table provides "scalars" which are all point measurements (assuming fair data collection practices).

"Scalars" allow for "metrics" to be determined : "rates of change" and "rates of rates" to be calculated.

All useful, but these are NOT root cause determinations.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by cj

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

That's possible but there's no question that the horses used to race more starts per year. And they didn't seem to need three months in between starts. Woody Stephens used to race his Belmont Stakes prospects a week before the Belmont. If you look at his training career, he had a lot of stakes horses that ran a lot of races in their careers.

[ScottJ]

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).

As a headline measurement, this is absolutely true.

Now, we can be satisfied by seeing this overall decrease, however if any one asked *WHY* this decrease was seen, this data would not allow you to construct an argument addressing the question.

One reason why drug companies spend so much effort in Phase 2 and Phase 3 statistical trials is to eliminate bias within the data and avoid unintended correlations in the sample sets. This is incredibly difficult even when done by a single company (Pfizer, GSK, BMS etc.). What organization in horse racing would be able to unilaterally complete such a study?

Also, such a study takes years (which is why drug development takes so long). Horse racing is seeking an immediate solution yesterday.

The current "give me a fix now" approach statistically cannot (and will not) work.

[PhantomOnTour]

For comparisons sake, does anyone have breakdown rates for England/Ireland or any other countries?

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

For comparisons sake, does anyone have breakdown rates for England/Ireland or any other countries?

From The Guardian : "At first sight, the figures for fatal injuries to horses while racing in 2019, which were published on the British Horseracing Authority’s website on Friday, offer sound reasons for hope that the 2018 figure – the highest for six years – was a blip in the overall trend that has seen the fatality rate in British racing drop by a third over the last 20 years. There were 91,937 starts in 2019, and 173 horses suffered fatal injuries, a rate of 0.19%, or 1.9 per 1,000 starts. The previous year saw 201 fatalities from 93,004 starts, an overall rate of 0.22%."

"Just 35 horses suffered fatal injuries while racing on the Flat in 2019, from 60,514 starts, a rate of 0.06% and not far off 1 in every 2,000 starts. Over jumps, it was 138 fatalities from 31,423 starts: 0.44%, or 4.4 per 1,000 starts."

Source : https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...al-rights-body

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by cj

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

Oh absolutely true.

The decline since 2009 is significant and hopeful. But the baseline being 2009 is far from ideal.

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

While the headline number suggests a decrease of fatalities per 1000 starters from 2009 (1.9995) to 2022 (1.2483) supporting the safety case, here are some points not able to be analyzed through this data.

[1] With a decrease in starter count from 2009 (395,897) to 2022 (262,761), what is the count correlation to lower level tracks closing? The implication is that more infirm horses were being forced off the track earlier, thereby decreasing the on-track fatality count?

[2] If the same safety methodologies are being put in place across the sport, why are there differing decrease rates in fatalities per 1000 starts across surfaces?

Turf : 2009 (1.9359) to 2022 (0.9938) = -(48.66%)
Dirt : 2009 (2.1036) to 2022 (1.4421) = -(31.45%)
Syn : 2009 (1.4877) to 2022 (0.4046) = -(72.80%)

Statistically speaking, the table provides "scalars" which are all point measurements (assuming fair data collection practices).

"Scalars" allow for "metrics" to be determined : "rates of change" and "rates of rates" to be calculated.

All useful, but these are NOT root cause determinations.

If Synth is by far the safest surface, this needs to be taken much more seriously, esp. at a track like Saratoga, where it rains often, and 2 year olds of the future are featured

I wonder what the breakdown statistics are for 2YOs across different surfaces

Of course, the other thing we have been doing for a while now is racing horses too soon

The old time, great trainers used to give horses time to mature before running them, another factor in all of this

[The_Turf_Monster]

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).

While that's progress, it's irrelevant imo. The only thing that matters right now is the present and the standards applied to it. Society changes, it views all animals a lot differently than it did 20, 30, 40 years ago. It used to be the one house in the neighborhood with a dog.....now it's the one house in the neighborhood without a dog.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by Sheffwed

okay but what about the horses?

the idea that racing is bad, no racing is good does not consider at all the actual future for the horses themselves

What purpose for the horse in the modern world? If we don't answer that question, then where are we on helping truly make things better?

Mankind and horses had a symbiotic relationship since horses first emerged from Arabia. Horses were the means of transportation and agriculture, and now we just discard them?

Its amazing to me how little so many people actually think about the (global) outcome of what they suggest - it is human nature to become uncomfortable about the status quo - the same is true with climate change, and what about other countries? The best case scenario resolutions are always more complicated and need more thought

What do you think the horses would want?

To be raised and treated well in places like Fair Hill and the English countryside for starters, and some are born wanting to run

This isn't boxing - if we really care about horses, then maybe think about the actual resultant outcome of your actions if they were to be successful

Someone else complimented you on a great post an it is . These horses are bred and born to run . The trainer was quoted “she loved to run “. If there’s no horse racing the breed will be just about extinct or very limited in population. All these stalls up here would be empty . There would be no reason for almost all of these horses to be born or have a life at all . Some people that are critics have the mind set that these horses are “forced” to race . When racing and running is their sole purpose in life . So, what about the horses ? Wipe the breed out to satisfy our insecurity to feel “safe” in life . When a car crashes and people are killed do we ban cars ? An airplane crash ? Close the airports ? We are at a point in the world where some can’t handle the truth . It’s always been this way but it’s getting more prevalent. The fact is for any living creature there is a chance it won’t make it thru the day . Any animal or any of us . There is an inherent risk just in living and doing what you do during that life . These people will take away the chance for these horses to have a life at all.
And you are so right about the way issues adds handled . All of them . People live to tie things up in a simple bs answer . With issues that are so complex they require thought and pause . That’s why our politics are a mess . This is a tough one ………. But what about the horses ? Are they better off gone for good ? If there’s no horse racing what do these people think is going to happen to all these horses? Do they have an answer for that ?

[bisket]

Originally Posted by cj

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.

The primary reason California went to all weather was Santa Anita’s winter meet. The weather in California has big swings in dry and significant amounts of rain. When they had a particularly wet winter season they had lots of breakdowns. This was also Santa Anita’s biggest meet and attracted interest from the casual fan just like Saratoga. Plus you have a national tv audience. This is a good gig for racing and what we do right now will either hurt or help racing. When it was dry Santa Anita would get hard as a rock. I believe they’ve changed some things and altered the base so it doesn’t get hard like it used too, but I don’t think anything can be done when there’s a lot of rain. I think it’s rained so much that the dirt track at Saratoga has become a problem and there’s no alternative. I think if you have enough real estate to install a tapeta surface you can still race when there’s lots of rain. This is what Gulfstream did… a tapeta surface also gives an alternative for works in the mornings as well. .

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by pandy

That's possible but there's no question that the horses used to race more starts per year. And they didn't seem to need three months in between starts. Woody Stephens used to race his Belmont Stakes prospects a week before the Belmont. If you look at his training career, he had a lot of stakes horses that ran a lot of races in their careers.

Let's consider Woody Stephens Belmont Stakes streak from the 1980s. It is hard to believe that it is already 40 years ago.

In terms of breeding seasons, Woody's horses were five, six, or more horse generations ago.

Think about your Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandparents - for comparison, this would be in the pre-Civil War period. Health characteristics and longevity have changed substantially during that time. Our human travels and mastering the globe have led to "human breeding" that increased ou overall diversity during those generations.

Turn this to thoroughbred breeding. Diversity has narrowed. Less battle tested stallions are in the breeding shed during their four year old seasons. Stallions are chosen based on breeding deals. The breed itself must have changed, just as we humans have. Maybe, the breed has changed more than we think and we just have not identified the core genetic issues as yet?

[bisket]

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

If you a have minute this highlights the difference between euro and Japanese training and our methods. One thing that’s pointed out is that they have their horses out of the stall moving around and our runners are in the stall practically the entire day. I’m sure if we raced our horses more frequently it would help
https://sidgustafson.blogspot.com/20...2-failing.html

[Geno_Gino]

Originally Posted by burnsy

... But what about the horses ? Are they better off gone for good ? If there’s no horse racing what do these people think is going to happen to all these horses? Do they have an answer for that ?

Here is a video I produced in 2010. This particular program has grown immensely (and one of the principals is now the Anne Arundel County Executive). This can't take care of all the horses, obviously, but programs like these can certainly give thoroughbreds a life beyond racing. (Similar to greyhound rescue organizations)

YouTube (Short URL)

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

For comparisons sake, does anyone have breakdown rates for England/Ireland or any other countries?

I posted this on page 5 of this thread back in May:

Bloodhorse.com | Frank Angst | Nov 12 2019
Comparing Equine Injury Rates Suggests U.S. Can Improve:
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...-s-can-improve

BloodHorse compares equine safety numbers in U.S. to Britain, Japan, and Hong Kong.

Based on numbers from The Jockey Club Equine Injury Database in the U.S., the British Horseracing Authority, the Hong Kong Jockey Club, and the Japan Racing Association, the U.S. rates of equine deaths during racing are higher than Great Britain and Japan, and much higher than Hong Kong's rate. Hong Kong is far and away the lowest among these four jurisdictions.

Britain and Japan provided detailed total numbers as well as numbers broken out by surface. The HKJC provided a single rate for 2014-2018 as well as its 2018 rate, both of which were 0.6 per 1,000 starts.

It's worth noting that equine deaths during racing are rare in all four countries. For instance in Hong Kong, 99.94% of the starts are completed without such an incident. In the U.S. for the past five years on all surfaces, 99.83% of starts do not see such an incident.

When looking at such rare events, BloodHorse decided to examine the past five full years for which data was available to attempt to come up with meaningful numbers for comparison. As the 2019 numbers are not complete, BloodHorse examined the full years of 2014-2018.

For those five full years, the rate of such incidents in the U.S. was 1.67 per 1,000 starts, which is nearly three times higher than the 0.6 per 1,000 starts rate reported by the Hong Kong Jockey Club for those years. As noted, Hong Kong is far and away the safest among the four counties examined.

Still, the U.S. rate for the past five years also is 85% higher than the 0.91 per 1,000 starts rate reported by Great Britain in flat races; and 49% higher than the 1.12 rate for those years in Japan.

Fyi, US fatality rates have come down a bit since the above Blood horse article was published in November, 2019.

Thorougbhred Daily News | Bill Finley | 03-20-2023
Rate Of Fatal Injuries Lowest On Database Record:
https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...tabase-record/

The rate of fatal injuries in 2022 was 1.25 horses per 1,000 starts, a 10.1% decrease from 2021 when there were 1.39 fatalities per 1,000 starts according to figures compiled by the Equine Injury Database (EID) and released Monday by The Jockey Club (TJC). It was the lowest number since the EID began covering the fatality rate in 2009, when the figure was 2.00 horses per 1,000 starts.

“The data shows that since 2009, the risk of fatal injury during racing has declined by 37.5%, which is statistically significant,” said professor Tim Parkin of the University of Glasgow, who has consulted on the EID since its inception. “The overall downward trends are testament to the benefits of an evidence-based approach to safety, which is only possible thanks to the EID.”

Since 2018, the rate of fatal injury has dropped from 1.68 to 1.25, a decline of 25.6%. The 2022 numbers marked the fourth straight year that the risk of fatal injury has fallen.

That said, at 1.25 fatalities per 1,000 starts for 2022, the US still lags behind Hong Kong's fatality rate by a wide margin.

Also, one of the things Santa Anita did after their horse fatality spike in in 2019 was change their medication withdrawal thresholds from 24 hours to 48 hours.

They also placed greater emphasis on pre-race vet inspections.

Since making those changes, their fatalities per 1000 starts on dirt parallels that of Tapeta.


-jp

.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

That said, at 1.25 fatalities per 1,000 starts for 2022, the US still lags behind Hong Kong's fatality rate by a wide margin.

-jp.

The composition of the Hong Kong horse population is radically different as you are well aware. If you want to make the argument about horses of a specific racing age, that would be a worthwhile discussion. However, be prepared to discard the US's 3yo Derby Culture in the process and welcome back handicap racing.