2019 Horse Deaths per track

[mike_123_ca]

Source ... https://horseracingwrongs.org/killed-2019/

A few surprises for me, such as New York (76) and Florida (62) are not far off California's high of 82. Plus Kentucky is surprisingly low (13).

Saratoga (16) seems high for short meet when compared to Del Mar (6).

Some tracks have zero fatalities (Prairie Meadows, Indiana Grand, Kentucky Downs, Evangeline Downs, Zia Park, Presque Isle Downs).

Santa Anita Park: 37 dead racehorses
Gulfstream Park: 34 dead racehorses
Belmont Park: 30 dead racehorses
Charles Town Races: 20 dead racehorses
Turf Paradise: 19 dead racehorses
Golden Gate Fields: 17 dead racehorses
Tampa Bay Downs: 16 dead racehorses
Saratoga Race Course: 16 dead racehorses
Los Alamitos Race Course: 14 dead racehorses
Thistledown: 14 dead racehorses
Sunland Park: 14 dead racehorses
Finger Lakes Racetrack: 13 dead racehorses
Parx Racing: 13 dead racehorses
Penn National: 12 dead racehorses
Remington Park: 12 dead racehorses
Mountaineer Racetrack: 12 dead racehorses
Oaklawn Park: 11 dead racehorses
Mahoning Valley: 11 dead racehorses
Laurel Park: 10 dead racehorses
Arlington Park: 9 dead racehorses
Delaware Park: 9 dead racehorses
Delta Downs: 9 dead racehorses
Hawthorne Race Course: 8 dead racehorses
Sam Houston Park: 7 dead racehorses
Belterra Park: 7 dead racehorses
Keeneland: 6 dead racehorses
Del Mar: 6 dead racehorses
Lone Star Park: 5 dead racehorses
Will Rogers Downs: 5 dead racehorses
Fair Grounds Race Course: 5 dead racehorses
Louisiana Downs: 5 dead racehorses
Aqueduct Racetrack: 4 dead racehorses
Pimlico Race Course: 4 dead racehorse
Monmouth Park: 3 dead racehorses
Gulfstream Park West: 3 dead racehorses
Churchill Downs: 3 dead racehorses
Arizona Downs: 3 dead racehorse
Turfway Park: 2 dead racehorses
Retama Park: 2 dead racehorses
Rillito Park: 1 dead racehorse
Fairmount Park: 1 dead racehorse
Ellis Park: 1 dead racehorse
Sunray Park: 1 dead racehorse
Emerald Downs: 1 dead racehorse

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by mike_123_ca

Source ... https://horseracingwrongs.org/killed-2019/

A few surprises for me, such as New York (76) and Florida (62) are not far off California's high of 82. Plus Kentucky is surprisingly low (13).

Saratoga (16) seems high for short meet when compared to Del Mar (6).

Some tracks have zero fatalities (Prairie Meadows, Indiana Grand, Kentucky Downs, Evangeline Downs, Zia Park, Presque Isle Downs).

Santa Anita Park: 37 dead racehorses
Gulfstream Park: 34 dead racehorses
Belmont Park: 30 dead racehorses
Charles Town Races: 20 dead racehorses
Turf Paradise: 19 dead racehorses
Golden Gate Fields: 17 dead racehorses
Tampa Bay Downs: 16 dead racehorses
Saratoga Race Course: 16 dead racehorses
Los Alamitos Race Course: 14 dead racehorses
Thistledown: 14 dead racehorses
Sunland Park: 14 dead racehorses
Finger Lakes Racetrack: 13 dead racehorses
Parx Racing: 13 dead racehorses
Penn National: 12 dead racehorses
Remington Park: 12 dead racehorses
Mountaineer Racetrack: 12 dead racehorses
Oaklawn Park: 11 dead racehorses
Mahoning Valley: 11 dead racehorses
Laurel Park: 10 dead racehorses
Arlington Park: 9 dead racehorses
Delaware Park: 9 dead racehorses
Delta Downs: 9 dead racehorses
Hawthorne Race Course: 8 dead racehorses
Sam Houston Park: 7 dead racehorses
Belterra Park: 7 dead racehorses
Keeneland: 6 dead racehorses
Del Mar: 6 dead racehorses
Lone Star Park: 5 dead racehorses
Will Rogers Downs: 5 dead racehorses
Fair Grounds Race Course: 5 dead racehorses
Louisiana Downs: 5 dead racehorses
Aqueduct Racetrack: 4 dead racehorses
Pimlico Race Course: 4 dead racehorse
Monmouth Park: 3 dead racehorses
Gulfstream Park West: 3 dead racehorses
Churchill Downs: 3 dead racehorses
Arizona Downs: 3 dead racehorse
Turfway Park: 2 dead racehorses
Retama Park: 2 dead racehorses
Rillito Park: 1 dead racehorse
Fairmount Park: 1 dead racehorse
Ellis Park: 1 dead racehorse
Sunray Park: 1 dead racehorse
Emerald Downs: 1 dead racehorse

2 of the del mar ones were a freak training accident which had nothing to do with the surface.

[cj]

I'm guessing some of those tracks aren't reported accurately.

[jay68802]

I will say that Prairie Meadows has more than 0. There is 0 chance of that.

[mike_123_ca]

Originally Posted by jay68802

I will say that Prairie Meadows has more than 0. There is 0 chance of that.

Good point ... This is only a partial list (i.e. work in progress)

The author of the site states "Please note: This list will grow exponentially when I begin filing my annual FOIA requests at the end of the year. For context, please see killed lists from previous years."

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm guessing some of those tracks aren't reported accurately.

I'm guessing Evangeline is one of them.

[Scanman]

This is an absolutely useless thread. This is the purpose of the source:

Horseracing Wrongs is a 501(c)(3) non-profit committed to eradicating horseracing in the United States. We are in fact the only organization in the country that is clearly and consistently working toward that end.

[mike_123_ca]

Originally Posted by Scanman

This is an absolutely useless thread. This is the purpose of the source:

Horseracing Wrongs is a 501(c)(3) non-profit committed to eradicating horseracing in the United States. We are in fact the only organization in the country that is clearly and consistently working toward that end.

I disagree with your statement "this is an absolutely useless thread". While I vehemently oppose the mission statement of the organization, the fact remains too many race horses are dying in this sport and something needs to change to reduce these numbers. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring this fact is not going to improve the long term viability of the sport we all love.

My two cents.

[Scanman]

Originally Posted by mike_123_ca

I disagree with your statement "this is an absolutely useless thread". While I vehemently oppose the mission statement of the organization, the fact remains too many race horses are dying in this sport and something needs to change to reduce these numbers. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring this fact is not going to improve the long term viability of the sport we all love.

My two cents.

With respect, I appreciate your "two cents", but please pick a better battle.

I'm all for having a discussion on race track fatalities. However, if you want to have that discussion, you need to find a source and data that is not anti-racing. Then have that data refined to training and racing fatalities in its totality or for a given race track.

At that point, the discussion will be relevant. Until then, the premise of this thread will remain "useless".

[cj]

Originally Posted by Scanman

With respect, I appreciate your "two cents", but please pick a better battle.

I'm all for having a discussion on race track fatalities. However, if you want to have that discussion, you need to find a source and data that is not anti-racing. Then have that data refined to training and racing fatalities in its totality or for a given race track.

At that point, the discussion will be relevant. Until then, the premise of this thread will remain "useless".

Agree, these numbers have no context.

[Robert Fischer]

Evangeline Downs gets it's alien immortality healing powers from the Vermilion River.

[Robert Fischer]

source was gahbage.... stats were woefully innacurate... and there is no context...

but maybe there are some questions/discussion?


Should racing discuss some of the uncomfortable stuff, or is it better to stay silent?

e.g. Should racing ever speak on an acceptable/normal level of breakdowns?

Should a track like Santa Anita be congratulated if the breakdown rate decreases significantly after a spike in deaths(such as the spike early this year)?
Or is it one of those things that is better left unsaid, while the media excitedly meets each additional breakdown with "Another Horse Dies at SA as the Death Toll rises"

Should we actually be saying stuff like "Wow, SA has done a great job since their spike, and 'xyz' should be considered in all jurisdictions as possibly improved practices?


here is a quote/mission-statement from the same Source listed for this post "I’m here to argue that short of shuttering the betting windows altogether, there is nothing they can do to stop the carnage. Nothing. And what’s more, they know it."

The guy's mission is to (get donations/funding and/or) shut racing down.

Does racing have an argument that the public can digest, or is racing restricted to minimize and ignore?

[The_Turf_Monster]

I don't think there's a solution here if you want racing in North America in its current form. Contraction has already been happening in North American racing but the circuits running the most dates, ie the successful circuits that gather the most eyes, will lead the way in breakdown rates

[mike_123_ca]

Interesting to note that a reputable site shows a steady decline in thoroughbred fatalities between 2009 to 2016 followed by increases 2017 & 2018. I suspect the upwards trend will continue once 2019 numbers become official.

The attachment contains detailed analysis broken into type of surface, race distance, and age of horse.

The fatality rate (per 1,000 horses) between 2009 and 2018 concludes synthetic and turf racing is much safer than dirt:
Synthetic - 1.20
Turf - 1.47
Dirt - 1.97

No surprise in stats on age of horses injured:
2 years - 1.37
3 years - 1.79
4+ years - 1.86

Distance
<6f - 2.06
6f-8f - 1.74
>8f - 1.65


source http://jockeyclub.com/default.asp?se...=10&story=1105

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by Scanman

I'm all for having a discussion on race track fatalities. However, if you want to have that discussion, you need to find a source and data that is not anti-racing. Then have that data refined to training and racing fatalities in its totality or for a given race track.

And, that should be easy to find somewhere, right?

I mean, given all the racing media, DRF, and the reportage in our sport.......this is a yearly article somewhere, right?