equine safety

All posts tagged equine safety

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.

 

 

 

 

New York weakens rule that protected horses – echoes from the 2012 crisis

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

As a result of comments I received on my last post, I took another look at the 2012 report of the New York Task Force on Racehorse Health and Safety.  The Task Force was comprised of widely-respected racing professionals and chaired by New York’s current Equine Medical Director Dr. Scott Palmer.

The Task Force looked at the many factors that may have contributed to the 21 fatalities that occurred during racing at the Aqueduct meet of late 2011 and early 2012, with a view to identifying common elements that could be addressed by changing policies.

The Task Force looked at the “purse-to-claiming price ratio” that is the subject of a recent regulatory change approved by New York’s Gaming Commission and the topic for a hearing tomorrow.  As was stated in the earlier post, the Task Force determined that an existing ratio of 2.0 was too high to advance safety, and recommended adoption of a 1.6 standard approved by the American Association of Equine Practitioners.  Despite that recommendation, the 2.0 rule remained in effect.  The purpose of the new regulation is to allow ratios that exceed 2.0.

The Report identified the ratios that were in effect for 17 of the races in which there were fatalities.  (Nineteen of twenty-one fatalities were in claiming races.)  In only two of those 17 races did the “purse-to-claiming price ratio” fall at or below the 1.6 standard.  In ten races, the ratio exceeded the 2.0 requirement of the regulation that is being revised.  The Task Force concluded:

“All of the horses raced during a period of extraordinary claiming activity with elevated purses disproportionate to the value of the horses.”

Among the concerns raised in my prior post about the revised regulation is that the proponents of it  –  “various interested parties” according to the Commission’s General Counsel  –  have not been identified.  One suspects that NYRA’s Racing Office might be one.

During the 2012 crisis over fatalities, the Racing Office was identified as a possible culprit because, at that time, it could ignore a decision by a veterinarian that a horse should be scratched.  The Task Force concluded that the Racing Office’s goal of increasing field size “establishes a potentially critical conflict of interest.”  It went on to add that “field size, or the economic impact of a scratch, must never be a consideration when … [assessing] a horse’s suitability to race.”  (Emphasis in Report.)

The Gaming Commission is operating secretively, so we do not even know the proponents of this change or what their motivation is.  There is nothing in the public record to suggest that New York is not returning to the mistakes identified in 2012.  If economic considerations are paramount  –  as suggested by Dr. Palmer  –  and driven by field size, as we can only speculate, the outlook is not good for equine safety.

But the public has an opportunity to see the government agency charged with equine safety and integrity in operation tomorrow at the public meeting of the Gaming Commission.  There will supposedly be a discussion of comments I submitted on the proposed regulation change.  It can be viewed on their website on Thursday at 11:00.

 

New York weakens rule that protected horses

Posted by noonante on January 1, 2019
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . 3 Comments

Update:  After completing this post, the Gaming Commission announced it would hold a meeting to discuss policy issues I had raised in comments to the regulation.  Their meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 3 at 11:00 a.m. and can be seen on the Commission’s website.

The New York State Gaming Commission has weakened a rule they enacted to protect horses from fatal racing injuries.  The policy was adopted in April, 2012, in response to a rise in the number of catastrophic breakdowns that occurred in late 2011 and early 2012 at Aqueduct Racetrack.

The regulation established the minimum claiming price for which a horse could be entered in a race.  “Claiming races” are one of the most inscrutable parts of racing for the uninitiated.  A claiming race is one in which a horse can be bought for a specified amount before the race is run.  It is the lifeblood of racing, and the purpose of setting a claiming price is to attract horses of comparable ability.

Aqueduct experienced a sudden influx of cash for purses when the revenues from Video Lottery Terminals started coming in.  This resulted in significant increases in purses, including for claiming races.  As an example, a horse valued at $7,500 that had been running in a race with a total purse of $15,000 might now be entered in one where the total purse was $30,000.  (The winner generally gets 60 percent of the purse, second gets 20 percent and so on.)

The Gaming Commission’s predecessor adopted an emergency regulation in April, 2012, requiring that the claiming price be at least 50 percent of the race’s purse for a “purse-to-claim price ratio of 2.0.”  In the example from above, a horse could not be entered in a race with a $30,000 purse unless its claiming price was at least $15,000.

The crisis in fatalities resulted in the appointment of the New York Task Force on Racehorse Health and Safety.  It was a panel of widely-respected racing figures chaired by Dr. Scott Palmer, now the Equine Medical Director for the Gaming Commission.

The Task Force investigated the possible causes of the fatalities and made a number of recommendations. Their Report was universally praised, and has been considered a model of steps to improve the safety of the equine and human athletes participating in the sport.  New York implemented a number of the recommendations and has now seen a reduction in racing fatalities at its tracks.

The “purse-to-claim price ratio” was one of the factors examined. The Task Force concluded that the policy of entering a horse for a claiming price significantly below the purse value was an “imbalance contribut[ing] 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 Task Force did not consider the April, 2012 regulation of a “2.0” ratio adequate protection for the horse, and instead recommended the more stringent standard advocated by the American Association of Equine Practitioners:

“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 that year.  Despite the Governor’s order, Dr. Palmer seemed to have a change of heart and wrote a memo three days later in which he decided that the 2.0 ratio was sufficient, citing economic considerations that might put New York at a disadvantage with competing racing jurisdictions. The 2.0 ratio was not changed.

Dr. Palmer is now of the view that even a 2.0 ratio could be higher.  He wrote a memo outlining steps New York has taken to enhance equine (and human) safety.  He convinced the Gaming Commissioners that the 2.0 rule could be relaxed if a track has implemented increased safety measures.  Even though the weakened rule was put out for public comment and has now been approved as a permanent regulation, the Gaming Commission has refused to release the Palmer memo that was a key factor in the Commissioners’ deliberation.

Dr. Palmer acknowledges that there are no magic solutions that will eliminate all risk for thoroughbreds in training or racing. His 2012 memo references “degrees of risk aversion.” This appears to be a central theme in his approach to the regulatory change proposed in 2018.

In his remarks at the Gaming Commission meeting in September at which the proposed rule was approved for public comment, he recognizes that changing the rule will increase the risk for horses. At one point he stated:

“I always thought that if we were going to take away one protective factor, what do we have to take the place? What are we going to put back in that is going to protect these horses?”  (Transcript by Commission.)

What Dr. Palmer stated at this meeting is that a program of “Out of Competition Scrutiny” – not to be confused with Out of Competition Testing – would identify certain horses whose record might indicate an increased risk of injury. It is a worthwhile effort, relying on factors that have been identified as increasing the risk of racing.  The notion of a “profile” to identify at-risk horses has become widely accepted  –  it was one of the topics in the 2012 Report of the Task Force.

The new Regulation requires that a relaxation of the “2.0 ratio” can only happen if a race track requests an exception:

“The commission shall not approve such a request unless [the track] has implemented increased measures to ensure close examination of the competitiveness, soundness and safety of each horse entered in such a race.”  (Emphasis is mine.)

The regulation is clear.  “Each horse” in a race must under scrutiny if an exception to the 2.0 rule is to be made.  But that is not how Dr. Palmer described the change to the Commissioners at their September, 2018 meeting.

This is the colloquy between a Commissioner and Palmer from the Commission’s Transcript:

Commissioner:  “[s]omeone will be taking clinical history of each horse for each claiming horse?’

Dr. Palmer:  “No.…”

Commissioner:  “Is it before each claiming race?”

Dr. Palmer:  “No, it is one time….”

Dr. Palmer is the expert upon whom the Commissioners rely.  He has said he is responsible for monitoring the effect of the revised regulation.  But he has also said that he will not be adhering to the explicit language of the regulation.

This approach by Dr. Palmer appears to be “trading” one program to reduce risk for another that increases risk.  This implies that there is a certain level of risk that is acceptable. While I think most people realize that risk is an element of horse racing that cannot be eliminated completely, I question whether there would be widespread approval of a transactional approach that balances a track’s economic considerations with equine and human safety.

At their September 24 meeting, the Commissioners focused exclusively on the increase in risk and the ability to bring a halt to the new regulation if equine fatalities approached an “unacceptable” level.  While Dr. Palmer said there would be requirements on the tracks seeking an exception to the 2.0 ratio, he did not provide any examples of what those standards might be.

Just as troubling, however, is that this is a change, according to the Commission, being advocated by persons who were not identified, and neither testified before the Commission nor submitted public comments in support of the rule.  In his September 13, 2018 memo to the Commissioners, the Commission’s General Counsel stated that “[v]arious interested parties have requested the Commission to consider adding flexibility to the existing rule….”  Similarly, the Commission’s Executive Director referred to “[v]arious interested parties” having requested a rule change at the September 24 meeting.

There was a time when the “purse-to-claim” ratio was viewed as an important safeguard for protecting horses. The Task Force rejected the notion that a 2.0 ratio was adequate, instead insisting on a 1.6.  Governor Cuomo considered this to be such a significant step that he explicitly ordered adoption of a 1.6 ratio when he released the Task Force’s findings in 2012.

Now, however, “various interested parties” who are not identified have recommended a weakening of that safeguard.  The Commission has refused to release the memo that supposedly supports the change.  The apparent rationale are tradeoffs intended to mitigate the increased risk even though the standards that will be utilized have not been specified.  And it appears the Commission will not even be complying with the revised regulation.

This is a secretive process and not the way an accountable and transparent government operates.  More significantly, however, it is certainly not a way to bring about changes that will affect the safety of racing’s equine and human athletes.

 

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.”

 

Has NYRA turned a corner in public perception?

Posted by noonante on August 11, 2014
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics, Saratoga thoughts. Tagged: , , , , , . 5 Comments

When they start laughing, it is never a good sign.  And they are starting to laugh at the New York Racing Association.  In a self-inflicted wound, NYRA announced that they count in their Saratoga attendance figures people who do not actually attend that day’s races.  Then they prevented reporters from entering a public meeting.  To top it off, the NYRA Board at that same public meeting announced CEO Chris Kay was awarded a raise and a $250,000 bonus for, among other things, his accomplishments to “foster transparency.”

In last Sunday’s Saratogian, Paul Post reported that NYRA considers the 6,370 who purchased a season pass as having attended the races each day of the 40-day meet.  Communications Director John Durso said that this was consistent with NYRA’s past practice and with that of Major League Baseball and the National Football League.  As I explained in this post, neither statement could possibly be true.  It would mean that the announced attendance of 8,044 on July 23 meant that only 1,674 actually paid to enter the track.  While Presque Isle Downs might be happy with that number (where last Wednesday’s on-track handle was $33.000), it is a number that represents a crisis for NYRA.

The day after the article appeared I surveyed a  small sample and asked what they thought the actual attendance was, and then what NYRA would report it as.  The standard guess was that attendance was about 10,000.  The highest estimate was one who said NYRA would report 18,000.  The NYRA figure exceeded even that with 19,000 being given as last Monday’s attendance.

Needless to say, none of those surveyed had any factual basis for their estimates of actual attendance apart from being long-time fans.  The important thing is that NYRA had no credibility and was the object of ridicule.  Now the local media, including the Times Union and the Albany NPR affiliate WAMC, are joining the fray and they too are laughing.

The risk for any business or politician is that once the media narrative changes, it becomes difficult to undo, regardless of the actual facts.  The prior NYRA leadership was constantly depicted as “scandal-ridden” even though there was never a scandal.  That perception was largely fueled by Governor Andrew Cuomo and his henchmen, who steamrolled the compliant media and Legislature to support his taking control of New York racing.

The current NYRA leadership has mostly been given a free pass because the narrative had been that they were reforming racing.  Never mind that actual reforms were never cited.  But some of the current criticism is not warranted.

The NYRA Board meetings are, indeed, open to the media and the public.  I have attended every full-length meeting until this one.  The meeting notice states that  both the media and the public must call ahead to reserve a spot.  Part of this is for security  –  the meetings in New York City  are in the building with other government offices including the Governor’s.  The other reason is that space is limited.  I have never had an issue with calling ahead.  The meetings are also web cast, although this most recent one was in large part inaudible.

A more significant criticism would be what actually transpires inside the meeting, but that would require media outlets to actually observe the proceedings.  (The racing media  –  DRF, Blood Horse and TDN actually have reporters attend the meetings.)  One advantage for the non-racing media to have a consistent narrative is that it saves them work.  So the Times Union can run a second piece today on media being prevented from entering the meeting for 40 minutes without actually having to analyze what happened once inside.

Were they to do that, they would start to realize that these Board meetings are nothing more than fatuous farces.  This one was typical of other recent ones.

It began with the reading of a prepared statement from Board Chairman David Skorton, who holds the sessions in such high regard he scheduled it during his vacation.  Then we had CEO Chris Kay read from a report that he distributed in advance of the meeting, followed by CFO Susanne Stover reading from her report also distributed in advance.

The report of the Compensation Committee recommending the bonus and salary increase for Kay lasted all of 100 seconds.  Kay’s final compensation for his first year on the job is in line with salaries paid other racing executives.  But Skorton and the Board made a big deal about how it would be based on performance with measurable goals  –  and they were able to “address” that in less than two minutes.

The report of the Equine Safety Committee was even shorter, lasting 85 seconds.  Board members practically fell all over themselves in self-congratulatory statements about the reduction in equine racing fatalities from NYRA’s high level from two years ago.  No one, however, raised two numbers that should have warranted at least some discussion.  Racing fatalities for the preceding four months are three times the number from the same period last year.  And, just as ominously, the fatalities occurring during training hours have not been reduced.

There was no discussion or questions from any Board member on two of the most significant controversies involving NYRA  –  the wide-spread dissatisfaction with NYRA’s handling of the Belmont Stakes or the falsification of the Saratoga attendance figures.  It seems that the sole purpose of these Board meetings is to give its members and CEO a chance to congratulate themselves for the great job they are doing.

But the honeymoon may be coming to an end.  When there is blood in the water, the sharks begin to circle  –  just ask the man to whom NYRA reports, Governor Andrew Cuomo.

I walked around the clubhouse and grandstand yesterday, and observed entire sections where at least half of the seats were empty.  The benches on the apron in front of the clubhouse had plenty of vacancies.  There were empty picnic tables by the paddock.  NYRA announced attendance of 40,452.  To put that number in perspective, look at the attendance for Whitney day.  NYRA has been promoting their new concept of “Big Days,” and set an attendance goal of 50,000 for the Whitney.  The reported figure was 36,318.

The attendance story is not going away, because the falsified figures represent a government agency that has lost its credibility, and NYRA has been incapable of articulating an explanation that is either logical or consistent.  I also ssupect that in addition to counting all season passes in a day’s figure, they are also counting the number of reserve tickets they sell, even if no one shows up.  While the latter may be an understandable practice, NYRA would be counting those reserved tickets holders a second time when they come through the turnstiles.  I have asked NYRA if that is their practice, but have not received a response.

If there is one thing I have learned from working in government and observing it closely, there is one virtual certainty  –  the truth will come out.

NYRA backtracks on safety

Posted by noonante on November 11, 2013
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Uncategorized. Tagged: , , , , , . Leave a comment

See UPDATE on this issue posted on September 15, 2013

In a major reversal, Christopher Kay, President and CEO of the New York Racing Association, is going to undo one of the significant reforms implemented after the report of last year’s Task Force on Racehorse Health and Safety.  Kay has decided that NYRA’s Veterinary Department will report to the Senior Vice President of Racing Operations when he starts his job at the end of the month.  Since the Report, the Veterinary Department has reported its decisions on scratches to the stewards.  While this may seem like nothing more than bureaucratic shuffling, the reporting relationship of the veterinarians was a critical problem identified by the Task Force.

The Task Force was appointed in early 2012 following an uptick in fatal breakdowns during the Aqueduct winter meet of 2011-12.  The panel consisted of four widely-respected experts in racing, including two prominent veterinarians, Scott Palmer and Mary Scollay-Ward, Alan Foreman, head of the national Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association, and former jockey Jerry Bailey.  The group conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Aqueduct fatalities and released a 100-page report that was universally praised for its comprehensive and thoughtful analysis and recommendations.  Governor Andrew Cuomo expressed his commitment to making equine safety “the top priority of horseracing.”

The Task Force looked at a number of factors that could have played a role in the breakdowns  –  safety of the racing surface, medication rules, violations of the drug rules, and even the aberrant weather for that time of year in New York.  Foremost among their concerns, however, was that the NYRA Veterinary Department reported to the Racing Office.  The Task Force described this relationship as a “critical conflict-of-interest” that “must be changed immediately.”

The conflict arises from the differing objectives of the Racing Office and the Veterinary Department.  The latter is charged with ensuring the safety of equine competitors so that only sound horses are allowed to race.  The Racing Office, by contrast, has a major focus of providing large fields for bettors, because larger fields means an increase in the wagering handle  –  and more revenue for NYRA.  As the Task Force Report observed:

Racetrack management has a vested interest in maximizing field size.  Conversely, field size, or the economic impact of a scratch, must never be a consideration when an examining veterinarian assesses a horse’s suitability to race.

The vets begin each race day by conducting physical examinations of the day’s entrants.  If a horse does not pass this inspection, the vet would recommend a scratch to the Racing Office.  The Task Force Report recounts examples of interference by trainers and Racing Office personnel seeking to overturn the decision to scratch.  In one such case, a trainer dissatisfied with a vet’s assessment of a horse succeeded in getting the Racing Office to bar that veterinarian from examining the trainer’s horses in the future.  The Task Force also reported personnel in the Racing Office refusing or overturning the scratch recommendations of a veterinarian.  The Report described an atmosphere in which non-veterinarians felt “empowered” to challenge the decisions of the vets:  “The success of some of these challenges created an environment in which veterinarians felt intimidated and reluctant to make unpopular scratch recommendations.” 

The Task Force recommended that the Veterinary Department report to the separate agency that regulates racing  – now the Gaming Commission.  Barring that preferred resolution, the Task Force said that the vets should report to the stewards, an approach adopted by NYRA over a year ago.  That is the decision that CEO Kay is now reversing by having the Veterinary Department once again report to the racing operation.

Even if we ignore the wisdom of this decision, the timing could not be more inapposite.  While NYRA’s spring meeting at Belmont experienced a significant reduction in racing fatalities this year, the trend was reversed at Saratoga.  The Belmont fall meet saw four catastrophic breakdowns compared with last year’s six, but the Aqueduct fall meet has already had one in its first week.  But it’s the Finger Lakes Racetrack that is experiencing an increase in fatalities reminiscent of the Aqueduct crisis that sparked the convening of the Task Force.  It’s not a NYRA track, but is one under the jurisdiction of the Gaming Commission.  While the current NYRA leadership fancies itself as the racing industry’s leader  –  and, for better or worse, it is certainly one of them  –  the backtracking on a significant change affecting safety is not the example a leader sets.

We do not know what Chris Kay was thinking when he decided to go against a key recommendation of the Task Force.  There is, however, an unsettling backdrop to the decision that embodies the fears expressed by the Task Force on this “unacceptable conflict of interest.”  The Cuomo Administration, including its Chairman of the NYRA Board David Skorton, is on a mission to stop payments to NYRA from the casino company that operates the Video Lottery Terminals at Aqueduct.  With the VLT revenues, NYRA is in the black;  remove them and they are, once again, in the red.  Making the racing operation profitable without VLT revenues is now the Administration’s prime focus.

But let’s give the final word to Governor Cuomo.   His press release praising the work of the Task Force stated, “NYRA’s organizational veterinary structure was inherently conflicted by reporting to an entity (the Racing Office) whose function is inconsistent with deliberate and careful equine risk management practice.”  That is the structure CEO Kay has decided to bring back to NYRA.