equine deaths

All posts tagged equine deaths

Current crisis – will anything change?

Posted by noonante on March 16, 2020
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment

Horse racing needed another story in order to attract national attention.  In the past year we had the crisis on fatalities at Santa Anita.  Then there was the story about the 2018 winner of the Kentucky Derby failing a drug test that could have prevented him from even running at Churchill Downs.  So in the past week we read about the FBI arresting 29 racing figures for allegations of illegal drugging.  Oh, one of those arrested was the trainer of the horse that finished first in the 2019 Kentucky Derby.

The arrests are the result of indictments obtained by the Southern District of New York, justifiably feared by society’s miscreants.  The defendants include thoroughbred and harness trainers, veterinarians, and enterprising entrepreneurs aware of the market for illegal drugs in racing.  The most prominent trainers are Jason Servis, trainer of Maximum Security, and Jorge Navarro, trainer of X Y Jet who won the $2.5 million Golden Shaheen last March in Dubai.

The allegations are sickening.  You can read the main indictment here. In addition to  giving Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED’s) to top race horses, the defendants are accused of using and producing drugs that cannot be detected by traditional testing mechanisms.  One defendant accused Navarro of surreptiously killing six horses.  X Y Jet died in January, 2020, of a heart attack according to Navarro.  The indictment does not charge crimes regarding any of the seven fatalities.  (While the drugs are referred to as “performance enhancing,”  it often comes at the cost of making a horse more susceptible to injury, including ones that result in its death.)

The indictments represent the most significant threat to the viability of racing since the Santa Anita fatalities.  As can be expected, the responses from leading industry figures are predictable.

If one were a bettor, the odds-on favorite for making the most tone-deaf and inane comments would be Ed Martin, President and CEO of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, who took the time to pen an op-ed in The Paulick Report.  Martin proclaimed “this is not a negative for the racing industry, but testimony to the fact that the system can and does work….”

That’s right, the system works.  That is, it works if prominent trainers can administer thousands of illegal drug doses over a period of years to horses running in some of the world’s most prestigious races, but are not brought to justice by state racing commissions and regulatory bodies but by federal law enforcement agencies.  (The nonsensical “system works” pap was also pronounced by Joe Appelbaum who heads up the New York organization representing owners and trainers.)

Martin explains how well the system works:

“The severity of the allegations should come as no surprise.  Illegal drug manufacturing and distribution, falsified veterinary records and prescriptions, fraudulent labeling, and illegal doping of horses have all been openly discussed at ARCI meetings in recent years….”

“Openly discussed” in “recent years.”  This is the organization that represents the state agencies responsible for enforcing anti-doping policies who apparently were powerless to combat widespread abuse.  Over those same years that the “enforcers” were fretting about doping, there have been people willing to speak out about the doping abuse in racing.  Martin would disparage those folks as a disservice to the sport, even suggesting they were the real problem.

Martin is also a constant proponent of racing being “clean”  –  indeed, the most drug-free of major sports  –   because less than one per cent of post-race testing indicates a drug overage.  He never says that’s because the testing is limited and cannot identify those illegal drugs that are at the core of the federal indictments.

Martin’s real agenda is to say whatever he needs to in order to prevent what a sizeable chunk of people think is the only real answer to save racing  –  the Horse Racing Integrity Act, sponsored by a bipartisan majority (really!) in the House of Representatives.  As he said, “nobody needed a federal bill to make [the indictments] happen….”  That is, of course, true.  You may agree that two trainers administering thousands of illegal drug dosages over a period of years is an acceptable price to pay for not disturbing the incompetence, inertia and indifference of many of the 38 separate state regulatory bodies.

As with many trade organizations, the ARCI exists to protect the interests of its constituents, and not the broader interests of those affected by the decisions of those members.  And the Horse Racing Integrity Act would do just that.  It would replace the current patchwork of 38 separate state bodies that are responsible for setting drug policies, investigating abuses and meting out discipline to violators.  The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) would oversee an independent body that would assume the drug oversight from the state bodies.

One of the most significant problems confronting racing is that no one is in charge.  In addition to those 38 state agencies, we have the ARCI, RMTC, NTRA, NHBPA (and its state affiliates) and, of recent vintage, the Thoroughbred Safety Coalition.  I seriously think that if you asked a casual observer to name one figure associated with horse racing, the majority would pick Bob Baffert.

Graham Motion, who supports the federal legislation and is one of the sport’s more respected trainers, recently said in Thoroughbred Daily News, “We cannot police our own sport. … we can’t just keep on creating committees.”  Putting USADA in charge of drug policy and enforcement would not mean they were in charge of the whole sport.  But it would mean there would be a national, credible, and independent voice that could address the inevitable future scandals.

And let us make no mistake.  There will be future scandals.  The allegations of the indictments are, in part, based on wiretaps and informants, and now there are reams of documents that will prove to be incriminating.  How would you like to be one of the “customers” of the  ring run by defendants Scott Mangini and Scott Robinson who allegedly sold “millions of dollars worth of … PEDs” between 2011 and 2020?  I doubt that Servis and Navarro were their only customers and I suspect there will be some massive flipping about to occur.

Can the racing industry respond in a meaningful manner?  I seriously doubt it.  The rash of anodyne statements from leading organizational figures (“the health and safety of the horses is paramount, blah, blah”) is no longer going to be sufficient.  Years of inaction on meaningful reform means there is no sensible person  –  either inside or outside the sport  –  who thinks the industry is capable of self-regulating.

It is time to realize that the real decision makers are the general public and their representatives in elected bodies throughout the country.  When The Washington Post editorializes in support of abolishing racing  –  “Horse racing has outlived its time”  –  the bell is definitely tolling.

If those with knowledge, passion and more than rhetorical care for the safety of horses do not martial their forces, the end of racing may very well be near.

“But we love our horses….”

Posted by noonante on November 18, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics, Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

We are approaching the completion of a full year of debate, concern and apprehension over the future of racing in the United States sparked by the fatalities at Santa Anita in the early part of 2019.  A common trope among industry insiders to deflect public skepticism is that “we love our horses.”  As with any generality, there are elements of truth in that sentiment but, as with any generality, it is not universally true.

Recent developments from New York will cause outside observers to question that commitment when top level figures in the sport do not even treat humans with respect and dignity  —  let alone meet legal obligations.  The state’s Department of Labor has announced that it recovered almost $1 million in “stolen wages, damages and penalties” from, among others,  trainers Chad Brown, Kiaran McLaughlin, Linda Rice and Jimmy Jerkens.

Among the allegations against Brown is that he violated federal and state laws by “knowingly” charging workers from other countries who need special visas $1,500 in cash per worker.  It is not Brown’s first brush with wage or immigration violations.  It was announced during the summer that the United States had reached a settlement in which he agreed to pay $1.6 million in lost wages, penalties and immigration violations.

Brown, of course, is one of the top trainers in the United States.  He has won almost $30 million in purses this year alone, and led the nation the past two years with purse winnings of $27.5 million and $26.2 million.  In the same summer he was assessed that $1.5 million by the United States, he was nonetheless able to scrape together enough coin to pay $1.5 million for a premier property in Saratoga that borders the track.  He could walk to work if he decides to live there.

Chad Brown house-9294

Below is where stable hands live while at Saratoga.  They can also walk to work since they live in the stable area.

Oklahoma dorm room-8617

In fairness to the New York Racing Association, they have done a great job in recent years to upgrade the dormitory facilities such as the one depicted above.

Just to be clear:  the almost $90 million in purses that Brown’s horses have earned in the past three years is not what is used to pay his employees.  That is the amount that his owners and Brown get over their expenses.  Brown’s owners pay a daily rate that goes to the employees, so they also are benefitting from Brown’s cheating or   —  to use New York’s language  —  stealing from the workers.

The New York Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association has released a statement in which they assert that “no small business is perfectly run” and are subject to an array of “confusing” rules and a “challenging timekeeping environment.”  It is an organization that represents trainers and owners in New York.

Their argument is ludicrous.  Chad Brown is not a “small businessman” in any sense of the word.  On a sunny day in August, I stood at Saratoga’s Oklahoma training track and counted 16 of Brown’s horses coming out for a workout.  That’s 16 exercise riders on horses in what are typically multiple sets during morning training.  I would be willing to wager that the vast majority of New York’s trainers do not have 16 horses, let alone have the money to pay that number of exercise riders for a multiple sets.

If someone with hundreds of million dollars in revenue cannot keep track of his employees, he or she is not going to survive for long.  As much as his competitors may hope otherwise, Brown is not going anywhere soon  —  unless it is to the winner’s circle.  Brown may simply view law violations as a cost of business after you get caught.

And it is those competitors  –  many of whom are legitimately running small businesses, who are going out of business because they cannot compete with the behemoths such as Brown and the other “super-trainers.”  One of those super-trainers is Steve Asmussen.  He has been found liable for his third violation of cheating his workers, even though he has been running second to Brown in purse earnings in recent years, having won purses totaling over $70 million in the last three years.

If NYTHA is truly concerned about the small trainers, they should welcome the crackdown on the cheats and frauds in the business.

Just as important, however, is that it is yet another black eye for a sport that desperately needs positive attention.  Much has been made of NHL hockey star Erik Johnson’s paying the medical bills to save one of his horses who recently broke down at Del Mar.  His efforts are, of course, commendable, but the fact that the racing media views it as noteworthy means that it is not typical.

What would be even more newsworthy would be if Chad Brown’s or Steve Asmussen’s owners publicly denounced either for not treating their human employees in accordance with the law, and with respect and dignity.  We are speaking of businessmen who have made enough money that they can spend millions on horses that either Brown or Asmussen would agree to train.  Regrettably, they may not be interested in paying more on their daily rate to ensure fair treatment of those who care for the horses.

But, at least for now, can we stop pretending that powerful figures in racing love their horses when they do not have the same attitude for our fellow humans?

 

 

Will New York be next in the spotlight?

Posted by noonante on October 3, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

“As the racing world holds its collective breath, Santa Anita opened its fall meet  –  leading to the Breeders’ Cup  –  on Friday.  The one certainty is that any equine fatality will become a national media story.  If there is a second, the calls for outlawing the sport will increase.”  I wrote that Saturday morning.  Saturday afternoon, Santa Anita experienced its first racing fatality and the second since training resumed.

Santa Anita is in the national spotlight because there have now been 32 fatalities on its tracks this year, both in racing and training.  While there are several tracks in the state, Del Mar, the only other one that gets national attention, just concluded its recent meet with no deaths.

New York has four thoroughbred tracks, with Saratoga and Belmont being the most prominent.  New York has so far escaped the level of scrutiny that makes for the daily drama at Santa Anita. It is not, however, because the level of fatalities at New York’s tracks is not in the same ballpark.

If we only look at Saratoga and Belmont, there have been 36 total fatalities this year, including both racing and training.  Aqueduct, which races for the six months not covered by that pair, has had four.  Finger Lakes, a track not run by the New York Racing Association, has had 10.

I am not using these numbers to suggest that there is some sort of meaningful comparison that can be made between safety in California and New York.  There are numerous variables that must be considered in making any conclusions based strictly on numbers.  And California still has not stated publicly if it has determined the reason for the spike in fatalities earlier this year.

My point is that there is another high-profile racing jurisdiction that may have dodged the bullet of national scrutiny, but that it is living on borrowed time.   And that borrowed time may also be true for the racing industry as well.

The Stronach Group that runs California has undertaken a number of reforms to address the crisis.  Among the more controversial steps have been restrictions on the use of the whip and a gradual phase-out of the race-day medication Lasix.  It has also increased significantly pre-race veterinary examination protocols and is now requiring advance notice of morning works and pre-work veterinary reviews.  California’s regulatory body, the Horse Racing Board (CHRB), has been extensively involved in discussing and approving safety iniitatives.

While The Stronach Group and the CHRB are addressing both safety concerns and the increasingly negative perception of racing with imaginative and forward looking steps, the same cannot be said of its counterparts in New York.  NYRA is the parallel of The Stronach Group and the New York State Gaming Commission is the regulatory body akin to the CHRB overseeing horse racing.

New York experienced its own high-profile crisis with equine fatalities in the early part of 2012 at Aqueduct Racetrack.  Governor Andrew Cuomo directed an investigation by a panel of experts who came up with a 100-page Report looking at possible causes and recommendations for improvement.

One of the recommendations was that the regulatory agency “should expand its recently enacted out-of-competition testing rule” to include additional medications.  It is a recommendation Governor Cuomo specifically cited when he directed the regulatory agency to adopt it.  (Out-of-competition testing is not to be confused with the standard post-race drug testing that is commonplace.)

Out-of-Competition Testing (OCT) is universally accepted as a necessary component of any program to detect cheating in sports.  It is a tool used by the United States Anti-Doping Agency to catch cheats in cycling and track and field, and by the major team sport leagues in America.  Even the Ultimate Fighting Championship has an effective program.  Dr. Rick Arthur, the Equine Medical Director for the state of California, has said that without an out-of-competition testing program with teeth, you won’t have a real anti-doping program.

So how is New York doing?  I have been submitting public records requests for New York data going back to January 1, 2014.  More than five and one-half years later, New York has never identified a thoroughbred horse that tested positive in an out-of-competition test.  Never.

That may be because they do not conduct the unannounced surprise testing that is an essential component of an effective program.  New York’s Gaming Commission instead announces they will be conducting OCT on horses in the days before a Grade I stake worth a million dollars.  The lone exception to this was a low-profile trainer who had some negative media attention before the horses in his barn were tested.  (The treatment of low-profile trainers in contrast to the “super trainers” is a subject for another article.)

There is another matter that Governor Cuomo directed his regulatory agency to implement from the 2012 Task Force Report.  That would be a regulation governing the purse value in claiming races, or the “purse-to-price ratio” that I have written about several times.  Dr. Scott Palmer, DVM, who chaired the Task Force and is now New York’s Equine Medical Director, said:

 … there’s some very good research that’s shown that there is an increased amount of risk of catastrophic injury for horses in claiming races where the purse to price ratio is greater than 1.8 to one.  This is a very sound piece of scientific information …”

(The ratio compares the purse value to the claiming price.  A 1.8 ratio means that the purse cannot exceed $36,000 in a $20,000 claiming race,).

Palmer’s comment was made in a meeting of the Gaming Commission that caused me to wonder if I was hearing things correctly.  Because he was advocating for increasing the ratio over its then-level of 2.0.  So at a time when the nation’s public attention to racing was largely concerned with fatalities at Santa Anita, we had New York’s Equine Medical Director proposing a rule change contrary to that of his own Task Force (and the Governor’s explicit directive) that would lessen safety protections for horses and jockeys.

Over a five-week period beginning in August, three of the fatalities from racing at Saratoga and Belmont came where the purse-to-claim ratio exceeded Palmer’s standard of 1.8.

One can certainly argue that increasing the purse in a claiming race is not going to cause a catastrophic injury.  One can similarly argue that Lasix was not the cause of the fatalities at Santa Anita.  What would seem to be inarguable, however, is that horse racing has a serious public perception problem, and that the use of race-day medication and the Palmer-backed change is not going to convince a skeptical public that racing is doing everything it can to protect horses and jockeys.

While California has The Stronach Group and the CHRB acutely aware of the need for public support, it also has a Governor and a United States Senator who have already made public comments raising a possibility that horse racing could be abolished.  If New York’s racing leaders think Governor Cuomo will stand with them if the state begins to experience a similar level of controversy, it time for them to stop deluding themselves.

The Thoroughbred Daily News had a recent feature in which it asked prominent racing insiders to comment on a controversial proposal by The Jockey Club to regulate breeding.  A common thread of many responses was that the industry had more important issues, implicitly saying that the sport could only focus on one matter at a time.  Much to my delight, TDN is now asking “what would you do to improve the sport?”

The first respondent identified free past performance data as his top priority.  That’s right.  An industry is confronting a legitimate existential crisis and the most important matter is getting free PP’s into the hands of those who don’t want to spend $4 to get a racing card from The Daily Racing Form.

This is a level of obtuseness that may be the second biggest threat to racing’s survival.  The national racing organizations  –  with the notable exception of The Jockey Club  –  are bereft of ideas and are instead clinging desperately to maintain the status quo, even though that status quo has seen constantly declining metrics on the sport’s perception.

One such group, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, recently put out a statement advocating the retention of Lasix on race day.  Then there is the Association of Racing Commissioners International  –  possibly in an effort to emphasize their cluelessness  – said that if the horse people who cared so much about their horses could not use Lasix, they would start injecting formaldehyde.  Seriously.

New York could join with California and start implementing safety-oriented steps  –  I would start with a vigorous program of Out-of-Competition Testing.  I candidly doubt that New York will take any meaningful actions.  It is yet another reason that those concerned about the future of the sport should push for adoption of the Horse Racing Integrity Act in the United States Congress.

 

 

 

 

New York is oblivious to the efforts to protect horses

Posted by noonante on August 5, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Saratoga thoughts, Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

A horse was euthanized on the racetrack at Saratoga on Sunday after it collapsed during the running of the sixth race.  The race was for $25,000 claimers in which the purse had been increased as a result of the New York Gaming Commission’s weakening of a rule intended to protect the safety of horses (and riders).

The rule in question is referred to as the “purse-to-price ratio.”  It refers to the purse value of a claiming race in comparison to the claiming price for a horse in that race. In a race for $25,000 claimers, a 1.8 ratio means that the purse could not be greater than $45,000.  The purse in this race, however, was $52,000.

While this may appear to be an esoteric matter of little consequence, it became a major matter in 2012 when Aqueduct experienced a significant increase in fatalities.  The deaths resulted in a Task Force being appointed to investigate the causes and make recommendations. A potential cause of fatalities identified by the Task Force’s Report was horses being entered in claiming races in which the total purse value of a race far exceeded the claiming price assigned to the horse. The Task Force concluded that

“this imbalance contributed to perceptions that horses were being entered in claiming races beyond their level of competition and forced to perform to the point of serious injury or death….  Accordingly, the Task Force believes that the purse to claim price ratio should be no greater than 1.6, in which the value of the horse is approximately equal to the winner’s share of the purse, and that the Rule should be amended accordingly.”

Governor Cuomo agreed with the Task Force’s determination on the 1.6 ratio, explicitly citing it when he issued a statement ordering implementation of the Report’s recommendations in September, 2012.

Dr. Scott Palmer, DVM, who chaired the Task Force, however, had a different perspective. Three days after the Governor’s order, he wrote a memo to justify supporting a higher ratio of 2.0.  His statement at that time is indicative of his thinking – both then and now – on the relative balance between equine safety and the economic considerations for racetracks, stating that “the Task Force did not consider the business model of Aqueduct in a competitive environment for racehorses.”

The ratio remained at 2.0 until this year when the Gaming Commission  –  at the urging of Dr. Palmer, now New York’s Equine Medical Director  –  weakened the rule and permitted ratios greater than 2.0.  They did this even though Dr. Palmer said at a Commission meeting in July:

“… there’s some very good research that’s shown that there’s an increased amount of risk of catastrophic injury for horses in claiming races where the purse to price ratio is greater than 1.8 to one. This is a very sound piece of scientific information….”

Despite what he recognized as an increased risk to horses and jockeys, Palmer believed his proposed rule change would cause more horsemen to remain in New York rather than ship to a mid-Atlantic track, thereby increasing field size  –  for the economic benefit of the track.  That this justification is identical to the one rejected by the Task Force, however, apparently did not factor into Palmer’s advocacy for the change in the ratio.

I am not suggesting that the increase in the purse for this race is what caused the horse’s death  –  even if the rule had not been relaxed, he could have run for a $50,000 purse.  But a fatal breakdown in an event with an increased purse level was inevitable from the moment the Gaming Commission approved the weakening of the rule.

At a time when racing is facing increased scrutiny following the rise in fatalities at Santa Anita, a change that increases the risk to horses and jockeys is not only short-sighted but foolhardy.  I am not the one who connected increased risk to purse levels.  It was Dr. Palmer who despite saying it was a “very sound piece of scientific evidence” nonetheless advocated forcefully for a change he believed would inure to the economic benefit of a racetrack.

Dr. Rick Arthur, California’s Equine Medical Director, was interviewed on NPR during the Santa Anita crisis and said,  “if we don’t make racing safer, I don’t think the public’s going to allow us to continue the sport.”  New York’s Gaming Commission and its Equine Medical Director have shown they are oblivious to the worsening perception of the sport and placed horses and jockey at greater risk.

 

 

 

Racing is at a tipping point

Posted by noonante on June 1, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , . 2 Comments

Recent media coverage of horse racing is starting to feel like beach erosion.  Once it starts, it doesn’t get any better  –  ever.

The large number of fatalities at Santa Anita Park in the first three months of the year was, understandably, the most dramatic and important story.  There were 23 horses who were fatally injured while racing or training at Santa Anita’s tracks after it opened for its annual winter meet on December 26.

Then there was the controversy over the disqualification of Maximum Security who crossed the finish line first in the Kentucky Derby, but interfered with several other entrants including, most significantly, War of Will.  While the stewards made what, in my opinion, was the correct decision, the sub rosa suspicions did nothing to increase confidence in the integrity of the sport.

When War of Will came back to win the Preakness, the non-racing media’s lead was that of Bodexpress tossing his rider at the gate and continuing to run.  This was a remarkable event only to those who have not seen many races.  That both the Derby interference and a loose horse in the Preakness could have resulted in serious injuries to both horses and riders did not seem to be a factor in the national spotlight.

To top it off there was HBO’s Real Sports segment on horse racing last week.  It is not a program I watch, and have only seen this one and the one they did five years ago following PETA’s complaints about the Steve Asmussen barn.  This look at racing every five years was a sickening and horrific look at what are, undoubtedly, some of racing’s worst moments.

As one who follows closely racing, politics and their intersection, I cannot think of a more perilous time for racing’s survival  – and I am not talking long-term.  The rash of deaths at Santa Anita resulted in leading political figures and the Los Angeles Times calling for the suspension of racing at one of the sport’s most prominent venues.   Santa Anita officials did just that in an effort to determine if they could pinpoint the cause of the fatalities.  They have not yet, and returned with a remarkable period of no catastrophic injuries for six weeks, but now experienced three in a recent nine-day span.

It is disturbing, albeit predictable, that new fatalities have caused both Senator Dianne Feinstein and The Los Angeles Times to renew their calls to suspend racing until the reason for the fatalities has been determined.  California Governor Gavin Newsom recently added his voice in endorsing a number of proposed reforms in the state:  “The recent horse fatalities in California are unacceptable.  We must hold the horse racing industry to account.”

There are not many certainties in politics, and politicians have been known, to put it mildly, to change their positions.  But when an elected official takes a stand on an issue that is emotionally charged, they are less likely to back down and will want to see their concerns addressed.

There is no national voice to counter the assault on the sport’s integrity and value.  There are many respected figures in racing, and there are many organizations.  Unfortunately, no individual can speak for the industry, and the national organizations are not only useless, but often downright embarrassing.

Groups such as the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent Protective Association and the Association of Racing Commissioners International continue to respond to negative press with the same tired tropes that are easily disprovable or facially ludicrous.  Despite years of repeating the same responses, it has obviously had no impact.

The first is the low rate of horses testing positive for illegal levels of medications in post-race tests.  The rate is a fraction of less than one percent.  That’s partially because testing is only for a limited amount of drugs because the cost of a more extensive regimen is, according to regulators, prohibitive.  There is also a wide range of drugs for which there is either no test or violators are adept at hiding their traces.

The second is the claim that racing has “one of the most stringent post-race drug testing programs in any professional sport,” as stated by NTRA’s CEO in response to the Real Sports segment.  We literally have to go back 41 years to the drug disqualification of Kentucky Derby winner Dancer’s Image to find a horse of equivalent stature to a Lance Armstrong or Robinson Cano penalized for a drug positive.

The key phrase, however, is “post-race drug testing.”  When racing authorities in the United States get serious about drugs, they will emulate  Europe and Hong Kong and have a meaningful program of Out-of-Competition Testing.  California has promised to strengthen their program.  New York’s program is virtually non-existent for thoroughbreds.

Then we have the “those questioning the devotion of horse people to their equine athletes need only to spend a morning walking barns to have such concerns alleviated” line,  also from NTRA’s CEO.  Well, I have spent hundreds of hours on backstretches and taken thousands of photographs.  I have the utmost respect for the hundreds of devoted horse people I have encountered (many of whom are Latino or Latina) who work long hours, often at low pay, and clearly love horses.  I could swear under oath I have never seen a horse mistreated.

I also have visited banks thousands of times and never seen a robbery or a bank executive committing fraud.  I would swear that under oath as well.  That only means that those committed to wrongdoing will do it out of the public eye.

One of the most remarkable refutations of this “feel good” narrative, however, comes from the Association of Racing Commissioners International.  It’s remarkable because of its tone-deaf inability to see one step ahead, let alone several.  Let’s just quote from the group’s May 6 press release:

“All racing regulatory commissions have been put on notice that the banning of voluntary race day furosemide (Lasix) … is expected to encourage a return to practices deemed cruel, inhumane, or potentially dangerous to the health and welfare of a horse. …

Last Friday, the RCI advised Regulatory Commissions to be on the lookout for horses being given intravenous formaldehyde to combat potential incidents of bleeding. …

The ARCI also advised commissions that it is anticipated that some horsemen will return to a practice … [that] denies a horse food and water for twenty-four to thirty-six hours prior to a race.”

So if you are going to see how well horses are treated, avoid those barns starving horses or injecting formaldehyde.

To complete their superfecta of ridiculous defenses, the national groups and their spokespeople also blame the media and those in the industry who, they portray, as negative voices seeking to harm the sport.  Blaming the messenger is never a long-term strategy, and impugning the integrity of many who have devoted their lives to the sport because they seek improvement is as short-sighted.

There are many positive steps being taken to improve the safety of both the horses and the humans who get on their backs.  The Stronach Group’s Belinda Stronach announced a number of significant reforms to address both possible causes of the fatalities and public perception problems in March, many of which were supported in Gavin Newsom’s statement.  There is also federal legislation that would put a national body in charge of administering anti-drug policies, the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

The most publicized reforms have to do with phasing out race-day Lasix and the use of the whip.  While neither may have caused any of the catastrophic injuries, anyone who has spoken with a non-racing fan realizes that these are important perception issues.  And to be clear, the discussion has gone beyond attracting new fans to the sport.  We need to prevent those non-fans from advocating the abolition of all racing.

The Rip Van Winkles leading the national racing organizations may not wake up in time to realize that their strategies are both useless and counter-productive.  They need to take serious steps to embrace meaningful reform.  Washington Post sports reporter Sally Jenkins recently wrote a devastating piece:

“Thoroughbred racing, more than all other sports, confronts the human participants with their own characters.  In any other game, you’re responsible only for yourself.  But racing is all about the handling of the horses:  At the heart of the contest is the matter of trust, the sacred obligation to do decently and right by reliant creatures.  It is the thinnest of lines between a meaningful pursuit and an abuse.  The minute a horse’s best advocate is a Washington politician is the minute that line has been crossed.”

There is a tipping point at which the impetus to abolish racing becomes an irreversible inevitability.  We are quickly approaching that point.  Maintaining a snail’s pace of progress is no longer going to be sufficient to keep racing going.  The time for urgency is now, and not when it will be too late.

New York’s tepid response to Santa Anita’s bombshell

Posted by noonante on May 2, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , . Leave a comment

When the rash of horse fatalities at Santa Anita in the first months of this year led the track’s owner to announce revolutionary steps to improve both safety and the perception of racing, many hoped this would break the logjam of opposition to any meaningful change in the racing industry.  But as New York’s racing regulatory body demonstrated this week, don’t look for them to take a leadership role.

Twenty-three horses died while racing or training during the first three months of the Santa Anita winter meet.  While it has yet to be determined what caused the fatalities, Belinda Stronach, head of The Stronach Group that owns and runs the track, announced sweeping reforms that have upended the national discussion on equine safety. (Although we often use the phrase “equine safety,” we should never lose sight of the fact that when a horse goes down, there is a human on its back who can also suffer a devastating injury.)

The most controversial of her proposed changes are restrictions on the use of the whip, and a ban on Lasix, the diuretic medication that is permitted in all states and is the only drug that can be administered legally on race day.  While many people in the “outside” world are either sickened or surprised to learn that both whips and drugs are commonplace in racing, racing’s insiders will not be surprised to learn that on Kentucky Oaks and Kentucky Derby days  –  two of the sport’s premier events  –  a grand total of three horses in the 27 races will not be on Lasix.

New York, along with Kentucky and California, is one of the country’s premier racing jurisdictions.  Whether it would join the ranks of those realizing that the sport needed a massive overhaul of its perception among the general public, or side with the entrenched interests seeking to obstruct meaningful change, its Gaming Commission meeting on Monday answered, “we’re sticking with the status quo.”

The Commission’s Executive Director ran through a comparison of proposals by The Stronach Group with the situation in New York.  Where TSG called for an increased program of Out-of-Competition Testing, the New York response was, essentially, “we do that also.”  As I have documented in the past, New York’s program is so anemic that in two periods covering several years, it never identified a thoroughbred testing positive for a prohibited substance.

In what is one of the most significant proposals from California, TSG is proposing complete transparency on veterinary records, including the transfer of records to a new barn. New York responded with its policy in which one type of treatment is sent to a barn claiming a horse.  While this has not received the attention I think it deserves, the overuse of legal medications is potentially a major scandal, and one that transparency of vet records would uncover.

Use of the whip?  The Gaming Commission has previously talked about it and is “still studying” possible changes.

The Commission is also going to study its position on race-day Lasix.  The New York Racing Association that conduct racing at the state’s major thoroughbred tracks has signed on with a coalition  that is proposing a significantly watered-down version of TSG’s outright ban (albeit one that will be implemented gradually).  The Coalition is proposing no Lasix in two-year-old races or in higher level stakes races.  For the vast majority of races, there would be no change.

The Coalition proposal is half-baked.  If the reason for permitting Lasix is a concern for equine safety, why would it not be permitted for the more valuable horses – the stakes horses and two-year-olds?  But I doubt the Commission will ever get to approving the change.  The state’s Equine Medical Director, Scott Palmer, DVM, has already thrown cold water on the proposal, and this is a Commission that meekly follows Palmer’s advice.

New York’s Gaming Commission may actually be the best advertisement for the importance of having a national body overseeing medication rules and discipline for violations.  I do not think a single member of the Commission knows anything about horse racing.  That is not hyperbole;  I mean it literally.

My opinion is based on years of observing their meetings.  They almost never discuss anything.  They operate in secrecy.  The total “conversation” comparing California’s proposed changes with New York took all of four minutes (and there was not a single comment).  The Lasix conversation lasted five minutes. By contrast, California’s Horse Racing Board is comprised of knowledgeable individuals who engage in robust discussions.  They even allow members of the public  –  you know, taxpayers  –  to participate.

The simple reality is that the Gaming Commission is not going to be a factor in any national conversation.  The leading figure in New York on reforms to racing is Congressman Paul Tonko, co-author of the Horseracing Integrity Act 0f 2019.  The leadership of the horse racing community has yet to produce its own voice in favor of reform.  It is an embarrassing indictment on the lack of leadership in this state.

Racing’s latest crisis raises questions about its survival

Posted by noonante on April 25, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a comment

Thoroughbred racing is facing its latest crisis as a result of a large number of fatalities at Santa Anita Park.  Since its current meet began on December 26, 23 horses have been fatally injured while racing or training.  The Stronach Group that owns and operates Santa Anita responded with measures that are revolutionary in a business that typically moves with the speed of a slow-moving glacier.  They are adopting “house rules” that will prohibit the use of the whip except when needed as a safety measure, and also gradually ban the race-day medication Lasix.  Other medications that are permissible will be subject to stricter standards.

As significant as these changes are, the real story is whether this crisis is the one that will ultimately end the sport.  It is more than a public relations crisis, and is increasingly being viewed as an existential one.

Some people  –  OK, most people  –  undoubtedly view the prohibition on whipping an animal and administering drugs to that animal so that it can race as no-brainers.  That is, if they are not shocked that both practices are currently allowed in all racing jurisdictions in the United States.

California’s racing leaders are seriously concerned that a ballot initiative could ban racing in the state.  One statistic I saw is that placing a measure on the state-wide ballot requires 600,000 signatures and that PETA, a leader in protests over the fatalities, has 700,000 members in California.  Senator Diane Feinstein and Congressperson Judy Chu (who represents the district including Santa Anita) have both expressed serious reservations about the state of racing.  According to Bill Finley in Thoroughbred Daily News, the Los Angeles Times has called for racing to be suspended until the track determines the causes of the fatalities.

Unfortunately, that same sense of urgency  –  and, I would suggest, reality  –  does not apply to other influential voices in the racing industry.

There are the national and local organizations representing trainers and owners.  When these modern-day Rip Van Winkles finally wake up, there may no longer be a sport of horse racing.  The National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (HBPA) held its national convention in mid-March as the crisis at Santa Anita was coming to a head.  If you listened to them, you would think the key to bringing in new fans and increasing handle was not in changing a broad-based negative perception, but in providing free past performance data.  I did not see a single media account of any discussion of the situation in California.

It’s not surprising that this group did not want to discuss the reality of what is going on at Santa Anita.  They are in the forefront of the denialism that racing has a significant perception problem caused by the use of drugs.  In written testimony for a Congressional hearing on proposed federal legislation last June, Eric Hamelback, CEO of the National HBPA, stated:

“The support for [the federal legislation] comes from a well-financed vocal minority of owners and trainers … who claim ‘the fragmented system of medication regulation is not working.’  The implication here is that the result is widespread illegal drug use or ‘cheating.’  However, those who make that claim offer no evidence to support the notion of rampant illegal drug use.  That is no surprise because there is none that I know of….

Any asserted problem is one of misperception caused by recurrent sensationalism in the public media….

Horse racing in the United States has the most comprehensive testing program of any sport in the world and employs the most sophisticated and sensitive equipment found anywhere….

… 99.5% of over 354,000 tests of biological samples taken from thoroughbred race horses were negative for drug use….  these results should be the envy of every other sport that tests athletes for drugs….”

There’s a lot to unpack in that brief excerpt.  For starters, the notion that horse racing has the most sophisticated testing that “should be the envy of every other sport” is downright ludicrous.  When a horse of the stature of a Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Robinson Cano or Julian Edelman is sanctioned for illegal drug use we might give some credence to Hamelback’s hyperbole.

The “99.5 per cent” figure is regularly used by the denialists to prove the sport is clean.  I do not dispute that is an accurate number, but it is so high because there are a number of drugs that cannot be detected by the supposedly “sophisticated” testing of Hamelback’s imagination.

The racing media has been filled recently with articles about bisphosphonate.  I had not heard of this one until a couple of weeks ago when the mid-Atlantic tracks and sales companies started restricting its usage.  According to Dr. Rick Arthur, California’s Equine Medical Director, it does not have a legitimate therapeutic use at a track.  The concern, however, is that it can be used on younger horses going through a sale to hide radiographic evidence of a bone issue.  Nice, right, for an industry seeking to convince folks there is nothing to see here?  While sales companies say a horse testing positive for  bisphosphonates can be returned, there is not yet a reliable test when the drug is administered sufficiently far in advance of the sale.  So I guess there would be a 100% rate of sales horses testing negative for bisphosphonates.

Then there is Hamelback’s argument that the “well-financed” proponents of federal legislation are implying that there is “widespread” and “rampant” cheating.  I am not aware of any responsible person associated with racing saying there is “rampant” cheating.  But I have also never met an owner, trainer, track worker, race track employee or fan who does not believe there is cheating.  The widespread perception that cheating is a regular feature of racing, even if limited, is devastating.

Finally, there are the well-worn tropes that “the media” is responsible for the negative perceptions and that “we need to do a better job of educating the public.”  Ed Martin, President of the Association of Racing Commissioners International laments that all the money spent on, among others, “bloggers” could be better devoted to research.  (I take particular umbrage at that one since I have not seen the largesse.)  The difficulty, however, lies in convincing the public that whipping a horse or giving it drugs so it can race are actions inspired by a love for the animal.

We do not know if the causes of any of the Santa Anita fatalities are related to drugs.  From what I know of Lasix, it would be astonishing if the diuretic was the direct cause of any fatalities, let alone 23 of them.  But The Stronach Group’s announcement of a ban had less to do with a possible cause for the fatalities, and more to do with a perception that race-day medications are harming the sport, if not the horse.

The use of drugs in horse racing is more complicated than whether race-day medications should be permitted.  I think there are three categories into which drugs can be grouped.

The first  –  and easiest to deal with  –  are drugs that have no therapeutic value and are only used because of performance-enhancing aspects or to mask pain in the horse.  Out-of-Competition Testing is intended to identify these substances.  But if a state such as New York doesn’t take it seriously, abuse is likely to be more widespread.  New York doesn’t even track the results of whatever testing it does, and in response to a public records request covering periods of several years, could not identify a single thoroughbred testing positive.  Charles Hayward, who just wrote an excellent piece on the medication issue for Thoroughbred Racing Commentary pointed out that California has no penalties for violations.

The second group consists of Lasix.  It is the only medication approved in every racing jurisdiction in the United States for use on the day of a race, but is illegal in every other country with racing.  Its stated purpose is to prevent Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhaging  –  more commonly referred to as “bleeding.”  Regulations typically require that a veterinarian must establish that a horse bled in order for it to be given the medication.  The reality is that it is a rule observed more in its breach than its observance.  I have had a vet recommend Lasix even though there was no indication the horse bled.  And the reality is that approximately 95 per cent of the horses on a given race card are being given the drug.

The other reality is that it is a performance-enhancing drug. It causes a horse to lose some 20 pounds in weight because of its diuretic effect.  If weight is not an important factor in racing, we would not give a weight break to apprentice jockeys, nor have “handicap” races in which horses are assigned different weights based on expected performance.  Even those owners and trainers expressing public opposition to Lasix continue to administer it to their own horses so as not to lose what is widely acknowledged as an “advantage.”

The third category is the one that I think would be much more troubling than the use of Lasix but for the fact there is no data on usage.  These are legal and permissible therapeutic medications.  Racing deals with this category by specifying withdrawal times before a race and levels of concentration during a post-race test below which there is no violation.  Thus, New York prohibits the administration of butorphanol  within 96 hours of a race, and a concentration level below 300 ng/ml in a post-race test carries no penalty.

A horse, of course, can experience any number of ailments for which a medication may be an essential treatment.  Standards of veterinary care require that the ailment be diagnosed and treatment recommended by a vet who has examined the animal.  The problem arises when the “legal” drug continues to be administered even after the need for it no longer exists.  There are two examples in recent years in which this has been abundantly clear.

The New York Gaming Commission publishes three days of veterinary records immediately before Grade I races having a purse of $1 million or more.  In the first year of the Commission making these results available, there was a remarkable situation.  One high-profile trainer who had numerous horses entered in such races administered the same drug, with the same dosage, for every one of his horses every day.  It of course defies common sense that this was the result of a vet examining the horse, finding that each had the same condition, and then prescribing the same medication.  I must not have been the only person noticing this seeming anomaly because in subsequent years the practice stopped.

In the other example, a high-profile trainer’s horse was “featured” in a New York Times article because he was one of the fatalities at Aqueduct in 2011-12 that was their own crisis of equine deaths.  The accompanying article stated the gelding experienced pain and cartilage damage from a degenerative joint disease, and had been injected 13 times in the month before the race to treat that condition, including an injection into a joint five days before the race. Again, this was a “legal” drug administered within “legal” restrictions.  It is, however, a medication that if administered in the described manner meant the horse had no business on a race track.  (New York has since tightened its regulations on joint injections.)

Are there other examples today of similarly horrifying stories?  Of course there are, unless you are a hopeless naïf or the head of an organization such as the National HBPA or ARCI.  Is racing taking steps to improve the situation?  They are.  In the examples just cited, New York required reports that resulted in identifying one problem and took corrective actions following the other.  Is the progress sufficient?  Not if you are a horse or a jockey  –  or a member of the general public.

And there are those whose awareness of racing’s current environment are as clueless as that of Rip Van Winkle upon awakening.  Veterinarian Jeff Blea commented that Santa Anita field sizes have been down in recent weeks because of the crisis:

“Trainers are doing their jobs.  Veterinarians are doing their jobs.  People aren’t wanting to push these horses and take those risks like they did before.”

Blea is Chair of the American Association of Equine Practitioners’ Racing Committee, quoted in Thoroughbred Daily News on April 20.

While one might expect that veterinarians would be in the forefront of safety initiatives, his approach is not dissimilar to that of New York’s Equine Medical Director Scott Palmer, DVM, who recently convinced New York’s Gaming Commission to weaken a safety regulation enacted after New York experienced its own crisis of track fatalities in 2011-12.  Palmer acknowledged the increased risk to the horse (and jockey) but thought it could be offset by other measures.

Fortunately, there are industry figures who do not believe there is an acceptable level of horse deaths that will be acceptable to the public.  The first, of course, is Belinda Stronach taking radical steps to address the negative perceptions heightened by the Santa Anita fatalities.

The reforms announced by The Stronach Group go well beyond the banning of race-day medications.  But the Lasix ban prompted a coalition of other tracks to adopt their own restrictions on the diuretic, banning its use on two-year-olds in 2020 and in many stakes races starting in 2021.  While many have praised this as a good first step, it sends an awkward message for a policy intended to address one of racing’s biggest perception problems:  if race-day medication is not acceptable for stakes horses and babies, why is it permissible on the lesser horses who make up the vast majority of racehorses?

The Jockey Club is the “breed registry” for the U.S. and Canada, and also keeps valuable data bases on what is going on in the sport, as well as funding important health-related research.  In the past month, they published their vision for comprehensive reform, available here, and must-reading for anyone concerned about the future of the sport.

The Jockey Club also supports the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2019, H.R. 1754, the current version of legislation that has been introduced in the last two Congresses.  The bill would create a private and independent anti-doping authority for horse racing that would establish uniform national standards, overseen by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).  The same industry entities leading the fight to keep Lasix also oppose national legislation to establish uniformity on medication policies within the states.

I think that anyone who wants to see racing survive and thrive should make their views known to their U.S. Senators and Members of Congress.  Even if Santa Anita weathers this current crisis, there will be another, either there or elsewhere.  It is foolhardy to think racing is guaranteed to go on indefinitely.  Either racing can present a unified front on reform, or abolition efforts will take over.  An institution that arrogantly thinks it can escape change is doomed to failure.

 

 

 

 

NY response to Spa deaths is PR nonsense

Posted by noonante on August 23, 2017
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Saratoga thoughts. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

Saratoga Race Course has witnessed a disturbing number of equine fatalities this meet.  Since racing began on July 21, eight horses have had catastrophic breakdowns while racing, and seven six more died while training in the morning.  It has been the cause of considerable consternation on the back stretches, and among fans and the media.

On Monday, the New York State Gaming Commission and the New York Racing Association issued a press release announcing they were “implementing additional actions immediately” at the track to address the health and safety concerns.  The release was five pages long (single-spaced), apparently in an attempt to convince the public that serious attempts were being made to address a crisis in public confidence.

It announced one new action being taken by the bodies responsible for the conduct of racing:  an additional veterinarian was going to be assigned to the track during training hours, “doubling” the number of vets who witness the morning training conducted on two tracks.

I must admit that I do not know if having a vet present during training is a good idea, but I assume it must be.  If that is the case, why has it taken the Gaming Commission and NYRA so long to take this step?  If you have been to the main track and the Oklahoma training track in the morning, you know that one person could not cover both facilities.

The only other new action being taken is the decision by the National Steeplechase Association —  not the Commission or NYRA  —  to ban apprentice riders from steeplechase events at both Saratoga and Belmont.  That decision was announced in a one-sentence policy announcement by that organization with no explanation or rationale.  That it applies only in New York indicates that this it is a panicked reaction to create the inaccurate impression that something is being done.

All the other “additional measures” are steps that have already been taken, which is not to diminish their significance.  The press release was reminiscent of one of my efforts in college to throw together a bunch of unrelated topics for a term paper under the sophomoric view that the professor would not recognize bullshit when he saw it.

The cause of fatalities is a complicated one, and there are many possible explanations ranging from track conditions to undetected physical issues to irresponsible use of drugs.  New York has implemented a number of steps in recent years to enhance the safety and welfare of horses.  Dr. Scott Palmer, New York’s Equine Medical Director, chaired a Task Force in 2012 that produced a landmark report identifying a number of steps that should be taken to improve the health and safety of both equine and human athletes.

Dr. Palmer also chaired a group that reported on 2014 Saratoga fatalities, recommending additional steps to enhance safety.  My memory is that the Gaming Commission reported that he was writing another report of 2016 fatalities, but the Gaming Commission has refused to answer my questions about whether there is such a report.  The Monday press release states that another investigation is being conducted on this year’s breakdowns, but the Commission refused to answer my questions about whether that would generate a report.

There is little secret in why the Gaming Commission and NYRA issued this press release now.  The Travers is the signature event of New York’s summer racing.  Media outlets that care little about digging into a complicated story will relish reporting on the number of fatalities, because that is simple.

But putting out a release trumpeting “immediate” and “additional” steps that are neither, undermines the credibility of New York racing, particularly when the claims can be so easily debunked.  As Rick Violette, Jr., President of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, said:  “The litany of programs and initiatives and safety measures are only impressive when they work.”

 

NYRA backtracks on equine safety – an update

Posted by noonante on August 21, 2015
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , . Leave a comment

The following article is based on one I posted on August 15.  Following its publication, I received a communication from the spokesperson for New York’s Gaming Commission who provided me with a letter from Dr. Scott Palmer, D.V.M., Chair of the Task Force, who had determined it was not immediately necessary to change the ratio of purse levels to the claiming price.  While I had requested documents under the New York public records law, this letter apparently was not in the possession of the Gaming Commission.  This post discusses that letter as well as other factual material not included in the original post.

The New York Racing Association is running claiming races contrary to a key standard of the 2012 Task Force on Racehorse Health and Safety.  The Task Force stated that the ratio of the purse amount to the claiming price “should be no greater than 1.6.”  Over the first 23 days of the Saratoga meet, NYRA has carded races that exceed that ratio 34 times.

The Task Force was created in 2012 following a significant increase in equine fatalities on Aqueduct’s inner track.  It was composed of widely-respected racing figures and chaired by Dr. Scott Palmer, D.V.M. It was charged with investigating the causes of the breakdowns and making recommendations.  One focus of their work was the infusion of revenues from Video Lottery Terminals that went to NYRA purses, especially in lower-level claiming races.  The Task Force concluded that the existing regulation

“contained no provision to address a potential imbalance between the value of the horse and the purse of the race, as occurred during the Aqueduct meet.  This imbalance contributed to perceptions that horses were being entered in claiming races beyond their level of competition and forced to perform to the point of serious injury or death.”

The agency regulating racing adopted a rule limiting the purse to claim ration to 2.0, but the Task Force found this inadequate to protect equine safety:  “… the Task Force believes that the purse to claim price ratio should be no greater than 1.6, in which the value of the horse is approximately equal to the winner’s share of the purse, and that the Rule should be amended accordingly.”  The Task Force conclusion is consistent with that of the American Association of Equine Practitioners which, in 2009, stated that the ratio should not be greater than 1.5.

Governor Andrew Cuomo agreed.  When he released the Task Force report on September 28, he directed the regulatory agency to amend the “claiming rule to allow a purse-to-claim ratio no greater than 1.6 to 1.”

In an interesting development, Dr. Palmer retreated from the Task Force’s recommendation three days later.  He cited the unintended economic consequence that might put New York at a competitive disadvantage with neighboring states that also had casino-fueled purse increases.  While one would conclude from reading the Task Force Report that equine and rider safety were paramount, Palmer was now weighing the economic considerations:

“The Task Force believes that [the 1.6 ratio] is a defensible ration from a pure safety-goal oriented perspective, but recognizes that in this situation there are degrees of risk aversion that may be effective, even if they are not absolute.”

(Emphasis mine.)

He further determined that the existing 2.0 rule

“may have already achieved the desired effect by providing a more appropriate ratio that has diminished the incentive to race horses at an undervalued price….  The existing rule change may well have established a balance between equine safety and economic viability, particularly when taken in the context of the implementation of the other recommendations of the Task Force.”

What is puzzling about this rationale is that the “other recommendations” of the Task Force could not have been implemented since the Palmer letter came only three days after the Report’s release.  Also, the existing 2.0 rule had yet to be in effect at the time of the Aqueduct meet.  It was adopted at the end of the spring 2012 meet, and had yet to be tested at the track that is the focus of so much attention regarding racing fatalities.

Since the 2012 crisis, Aqueduct has had two more occasions when fatalities provoked concern by New York’s racing officials.  The catastrophic injuries early in the 2012-2013 Aqueduct meeting caused David Skorton, then the Chair of the NYRA Board to raise the possibility that racing at the Big A should be cancelled altogether.  A member of the Franchise Oversight Board referred to the “killing fields” of Aqueduct.  In the 2014-2015 meet, fatalities resulted in NYRA adopting several hastily-conceived steps intended to address the problem.

In 2015, there were 10 fatal breakdowns at Aqueduct, including three on the main track.  Two of the seven inner track fatalities were in races where the purse-to-claiming ratio exceeded 1.6, albeit by minor amounts.  Two of three main track fatalities came in races where the ratio exceeded 1.6.

The Equibase chart for one of those main tracks fatalities was particularly poignant in light of the comment from the Task Force Report that “horses were being entered in claiming races beyond their level of competition and forced to perform to the point of serious injury or death.”  The chart for the first race on April 16 reported “ZENSTONE pressured on the pace inside by SONG BROOK early on and then PATRIA QUERIDA, got set down spinning just off the inside for home, inched away to the eighth pole, dug in under growing threat inside the final sixteenth, was caught in the last jumps while safe for the place honors, then was vanned off after the finish.”  The filly later died.

Was the $40,000 purse for a $20,000 claiming price the reason Zenstone did not survive her final game effort?  Since catastrophic injuries can have several possible reasons, it would be foolish to make that conclusion.  Are the four Aqueduct fatalities in ten races statistically significant?  No, given the small sample size.  (Saratoga’s 34 races exceeding the 1.6 standard mercifully have not resulted in any fatalities reported on the Gaming Commission web site.)

When Dr. Palmer wrote his October 1, 2012 letter, he recommended against an emergency change in the regulations to drop from 2.0 to 1.6, instead saying that the 2.0 rule should “be kept in place until such time that a deliberate analysis of  the potential unintended consequences that a proposed change in the ratio to 1.6 may be determined.”  While such a discrete analysis has not been done, the spokesperson for the Gaming Commission assured me that Dr. Palmer maintains that ratios greater than 2.0 are still inappropriate.

It’s a curious way to conduct the people’s business.  A well-regarded panel of experts prepared a lengthy report explicitly rejecting the 2.0 ratio and replacing it with a 1.6 ratio.  That ratio is consistent with the recommendation of the national veterinary group.  The Governor endorsed that proposal and directed the regulatory body (now the Gaming Commission) to change its regulations.  The chair of the Task Force reconsidered and sent a letter three days later, but it never made it to the regulatory body.  Since they did not have the letter, it is not clear if not amending the rule was the result of bureaucratic inertia or communications for which there is no written record.

What is clear, however, is that it is time to conduct the analysis recommended by Dr. Palmer.  New York racing does not need another winter of negative publicity concerning safety at Aqueduct.  Taking the claiming ratio off the table as an outstanding issue would be a step in the right direction.

 

 

 

NYRA backtracks on equine safety

Posted by noonante on August 15, 2015
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

The New York Racing Association is running claiming races that violate a key standard of the 2012 Task Force on Racehorse Health and Safety.  The Task Force stated that the ratio of the purse amount to the claiming price “should be no greater than 1.6.”  Over the first 20 days of the Saratoga meet, NYRA has carded races that exceed that ratio 28 times.

The Task Force was created in 2012 following a significant increase in equine fatalities on Aqueduct’s inner track.  It was composed of widely-respected racing figures and was charged with investigating the causes of the breakdowns and making recommendations.  One focus of their work was the infusion of revenues from Video Lottery Terminals that went to NYRA purses, especially in lower-level claiming races.  The Task Force concluded that the existing regulation

“contained no provision to address a potential imbalance between the value of the horse and the purse of the race, as occurred during the Aqueduct meet.  This imbalance contributed to perceptions that horses were being entered in claiming races beyond their level of competition and forced to perform to the point of serious injury or death.”

The New York agency regulating racing adopted a rule limiting the purse to claim ration to 2.0, but the Task Force found this inadequate to protect equine safety:  “… the Task Force believes that the purse to claim price ratio should be no greater than 1.6, in which the value of the horse is approximately equal to the winner’s share of the purse, and that the Rule should be amended accordingly.”

Governor Andrew Cuomo agreed.  When he released the Task Force report, he directed NYRA and the regulatory agency to amend the “claiming rule to allow a purse-to-claim ratio no greater than 1.6 to 1.”

It is a matter of more than academic interest.  The Task Force determined that 17 of the 21 fatalities it investigated occurred in claiming races.  It concluded that the “disproportionate number of claiming horses in the population of fatalities suggests that inadequate protection was afforded to this class of horse.”