PAULICK REPORT FORUM brought to you by BREEDERS’ CUP: BARBARO’S LEGACY
By Ray Paulick
When Barbaro streaked to the wire 6 1/2 lengths in front to win the 2006 Kentucky Derby, there was tremendous buzz throughout the racing world over the contributions the unbeaten son of Dynaformer could make to the Thoroughbred breed as a future stallion.
Those hopes were dashed when Barbaro suffered a devastating hind leg injury shortly after the start of the Preakness Stakes, and lost a gallant battle for survival some 8 1/2 months later.
In a strange way, though, Roy and Gretchen Jackson’s homebred colt may yet have a greater impact on the breed than ever imagined. It was his injury—played out in the glaring spotlight of the mainstream news media—that provided the impetus for a two-day workshop in October 2006 to examine ways to improve safety and soundness for racehorses. One of the recommendations to come out of this Welfare and Safety Summit was the creation of a national on-track injury reporting system. A pilot program, collecting injury data from 30 racetracks, was launched the following spring and became the forerunner of the Equine Injury Database, one of the recommendations of the Jockey Club’s Thoroughbred Safety Committee, formed after another high-profile tragedy—the death of the filly Eight Belles at the 2008 Kentucky Derby.
The Equine Injury Database, funded entirely by the Jockey Club as a service to the industry, is North America’s first national injury reporting program and includes approximately 84% of all Thoroughbred, Quarter Horse, mule, Appaloosa, Arabian and National Steeplechase Association races. Click here for the list of tracks that participating. Tracks not participating include Oaklawn Park, River Downs, and Los Alamitos.
Veterinarian Mary Scollay, equine medical director for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, has been an integral part of the data collection process from the beginning and serves as veterinary consultant to the Equine Injury Database. She provided an update on the work for the Paulick Report Forum brought to you by the Breeders’ Cup.
Can you provide an update on the Equine Injury Database after its formation nearly 18 months ago?
We implemented the quality control aspect of it in November 2008. What’s involved there is that the reporting veterinarians tick off a box for each live race date. That way we are able to know that we have complete reporting when no injuries may have occurred.
So Nov. 1, 2008, is the start of the quality controlled data period. We just sent 12 months of data to Dr. Tim Parkin, at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. He has done quite a bit of injury epidemiology work for the Hong Kong Jockey Club and British Horseracing Authority.
Why are some tracks not participating?
No has told me why. The software development and all reporting are done at no cost to the tracks and very little time is involved—no more than a couple of minutes per incident. If they are unable to enter the reports into our password-secured database, they can fax in their reports or mail them and we’ll enter it.
What is the severity or type of injuries being collected?
The criteria for reporting to this point has been any situation where a regulatory veterinarian has to intervene—a scratch in the morning because of soundness, a post parade scratch, flipping in the starting gate, a horse who fails to finish and is injured or is injured or lame after the finish. The data base is set up to separate fatalities from non-fatalities.
Is it just for racing, or are training incidents included?
We are interested in getting training information, but at this point the participation is inconsistent. Part of that is whether there is a regulatory veterinarian present during training hours.
Have there been any adjustments in the type of data collected or the methodology?
Not really. Epidemiologists have looked at how we were collecting it and are coinfident it is usable. After they start working with it I suspect they will make some suggestions.
What are the benefits the industry may get from this?
First off, accountability. We will be able to compare apples to apples and have reliable data related to racing injuries. Everyone is using the same criteria, so a specific kind of fracture is reported the same in Washington as in Florida. And if you have turnover in regulatory veterinarians, you collect the data the same.
The next thing is that we have now established a database on a national scope and will be able to identify risk factors to injury related to exercise patterns. It can also be a tool for racing secretaries related to stall allotments. Tracks can look at scratch patterns. The more information you put in the more you can do with it. Injury prevention and understanding injuries is important. Tim (Parkin) is going to be looking initially at fatalities. Everyone wants the answer to the $64,000 question about the different surfaces. But we don’t have enough data to answer that. We don’t have the pre- versus post- data related to synthetic tracks. There is very little in the Equine Injury Database that is pre-synthetic.
Within the context of a single track, if you start seeing injuries occurring at the quarter pole, the horsemen will say there is something wrong with the track there. But if you see a trend nationally, regardless of track configurations, size or surface, if you see an injury distribution pattern that is consistent, you are not condemning the track or the surface.
The Holy Grail is to combine the work Mick Peterson is doing with the Equine Injury Database (click here for information on the Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory developed by Drs. Peterson and C. Wayne McIlwraith). He monitors different track surfaces, has a hydraulic foot to measure the surface response to compression, ground penetrating radar, measures weather, temperature of surface, and drainage. All that stuff has been an art, and he’s brought science to it.
Will results, interpretation or recommendations made as a result of the data be made public at some point?
Dr. Parkin is planning to release descriptive statistics on behalf of the Jockey Club. He is going to give stats that will talk about fatalities per 1,000 starts, will likely reference dirt, turf, synthetic, the distance of races. We have to understand that those numbers, whatever they are, are not the same as a risk assessment. Let’s say there is a higher rate of fatalities on one surface as compared to another. In and of itself that does not mean there is a higher risk because of the surface, because there may be other factors.
For example, when I was in Florida, I observed that we were getting double the rate of right hind pastern fractures on turf vs. dirt. It was consistent over four to five years at both Gulfstream and Calder. The assumption is that turf racing is associated with increased risk for right hind pastern injuries. What is it about grass that makes a horse more likely to fracture his right hind pastern vs. dirt. Finally, someone from France said, “But where are all your turf courses?” (On the inside of dirt tracks.) The turn radius is too tight. It was the turn radius, not the surface.
The epidemiologist will need to find subsets of the whole population and narrow things down to single variables. You really need someone who is very proficient.
Will there be a version 2.0 of the database?
I’m at this point the proud mother. I’m not the one who is going to direct how the data is analyzed going forward. Parkin and Ashley Hill from Colorado State will do that first. We may come up with some questions that say to them, “Look at the data. Can you answer these questions or do you need something else?”
We are going to hear from people in the industry, questions they want asked, and we’ll hear from other researchers who will come forward with proposals. Ultimately it will become an academic resource. We’ve got some tracks that have been putting in data since January 2007—a lot of them have participated in good faith. We’ve got to follow up on that. We’ve provided the tracks with a good tool to use internally. Some tracks have several years worth of data, and they need to be able to use it.
Copyright © 2010, The Paulick Report
Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: Appaloosa, Arabian, Barbaro, British Horseracing Authority, Dynaformer, eight belles, Equine Injury Database, gretchen jackson, Hong Kong Jockey, Jockey Club, kentucky derby, Mary Scollay, Mick Peterson, National Steeplechase Association, Preakness Stakes, quarter horse, Roy Jackson, thoroughbred, Tim Parkin, Welfare and Safety Summit
February 18th, 2010 at 12:21 am
Keep up the good work, Dr. Scollay. Real, credible data may actually do us some good.
February 18th, 2010 at 3:27 am
This information is long overdue, and the key is that we MUST have access to it! Please make this data public and not wait five years for some university press release to pre-digest it for us to make it more palatable and less potent. And is does seem that waiting for a study has supplanted people’s common sense. Of course the turns on most of your turf courses are too tight, and anyone who has seen racing outside of the United States can see this without years of data to back it up.
February 18th, 2010 at 7:56 am
The racing industry needs to regulate drug levels on a national, not a state by state basis to further clarify the statistics in the Equine Injury Database and allow horsemen to compete on equal playing field.s
February 18th, 2010 at 8:10 am
I hope they will seperate the synthetic surfaces (in this test) from all
East of the Mississippi and those West of the Mississippi. We not only have race tracks in the East but plenty of Training Centers…many in Fla where its just as hot as Calf. I don’t believe the tracks in the East have the problems the West has. Sooner or later, trainers will try to bend the Tracks will against itself for more speed. They always have and always will
February 18th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Agree with Gina Rarick that the information should be made public sooner rather than later.
If the injury data is withheld, and its study reserved, maybe for years, to a pre-selected group of scientists - people are likely to assume something is being hidden or fiddled ….
February 18th, 2010 at 11:20 am
I’m just baffeled and angered that every freaking racetrack in the US is not required to participate. Oaklawn??????
And why aren’t vets at workout/training sessions????????
Pardon the pun, but it seems pretty lame to me. However, it is a start.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:30 am
This work is of immeasurable value to the industry and the safety of our horses who give their all for our sport. Thanks to all who have initiated and participated in it. As an equine attorney, though, I worry about the statistics being used as a tool for litlgation purposes against the tracks (that is a legitimate reason for tracks not to want to participate, IMO). I can only hope that the courts see fit to maintain the level of actionable harm to “willful negligence”. But I fear that some cases will slip through and set precedence, with juries awarding owners large judgments based on numbers from these reports. As they say — No good deed goes unpunished.
February 18th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I’m with you D. Masters. Participation should be mandatory - how else to get good data? And how tracks get away with having no vets on site during early morning training just has to be against every State’s regs. Someone commenting on the PR during the recent Michael Gill matter suggested Penn doesn’t have vets on site during morning training - injured horses are not attended to for hours. i don’t get that at all.
February 18th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
There are dozens of vets at the track every morning during training, just not regulatory (state) vets. The state vet is busy going barn to barn examining runners for that day. When a horse is injured in the morning, the trainer’s vet is paged to the track to attend. Horses are treated promptly, not hours later.
February 18th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
To clarify: “On track injury reporting systems” have been attempted in the past and this is not some “Eureka!” idea that popped up the first time at a 2 day workshop in October 2006. I’m sure the racetracks and veterinarians involved in the racing industry recall a serious attempt in the mid 1990’s by Julia Wilson, DVM, epidemiologist from the University of MN who began such a program but the industry, even anonymously, did not want to give up the number of its dead and injured horses and that study failed. Many have sought to know racing’s injury and death rates but the racing industry itself is the reason this information has not been forthcoming.
Everything I have read about Doctor Scollay leads me to believe she is truly attempting to learn the total number of horses that are injured or die in Thoroughbred racing and she should be commended but she is thwarted in her efforts and her study fails to take into account the following.
1, Sue Stover, DVM and specialist in racetrack injuries from U C Davis testified before the Congressional committee back in June of 2008 and stated:
“Although most fatal injuries occur during racing, over 32% of injuries occur during training activities”.
Yet the reason given for the inability to know the number of injuries and deaths during training is the excuse that there is no regulatory veterinarian on site. If no regulatory veterinarian is present, then simply make reporting such injuries and deaths part of the license criteria for private racetrack veterinarians. This is not my idea. This very thing was suggested by Doctor Scollay in a meeting yet a private track vet feared that the private veterinarians would not do such reporting for fear of losing a paying client by such reporting!! Protecting their pocketbook rather than become involved in a serious attempt to learn valuable information from the types of injuries and breakdowns that can improve racing and its uncaring image.
So whatever results come from this study regarding racing injuries, if that number is ever publicly known, we should multiply it by at least 30% per Doctor Stover’s testimony.
2. I have had email correspondence with Doctor Scollay and explained that there are a vast number of horses injured and euthanized while racing or training that limp into rescues on a regular basis. At CANTER MI with volunteers on the backside to assist such horses at Michigan’s very small racetrack, Great Lakes Downs, (now closed) during years of 6,000-7000 starts, over 100 horses would be taken in by the rescue and 30% were so unsalveageable that they needed to be immediately euthanized — surgery could not even help them. In addition, well over $50,000 per year (after a discount!!) was spent on surgery at Michigan State University for the injured requiring such intervention. Add to that the injured horses that required farm rehabilitation but not surgery. This is one small track. Multiply this one rescue’s experience by 100 plus other racetracks that run Thoroughbred races and the death rates and injury rates skyrocket. It would be a simple matter to allow the veterinarians that work with rescues to complete the form used by the racetrack to report such horses and their injuries and deaths but that was not done. Patricia Hogan, DVM specificially pointed out the need to address this situation in her article “Putting the Horse First” when she stated:
“Veterinarians who work with any of the racetrack retirement programs can tell you that the physical condition of many of those horses “donated” (a clear misuse of the word) render second careers or even adoption as pets next to impossible. Yet, these horses were actually racing often just days prior to entering these programs—how is that able to happen? And is there a veterinary role in this? The public seems to think so.”
htttp://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2009/03/10/Putting-the-Horse-First_3F00_.aspx
Yet despite Doctor Hogan pointedly referencing these poor horses, no attempt was made to formally include rescues and their statistics. A sampling of the type of injuries and euthanized horses for a period of years from Michigan’s racetrack can be found in the Excel spreadsheet filed by Allie Conrad from CANTER Mid Atlantic when she testified before the Congressional hearing as her attachments are part of the public record online. I emailed Doctor Scollay about this missing data and she suggested to me that such injuries and deaths could be reported directly to her for entry but there was no press release of that — no notification to all the rescues that service racetracks or to the racetracks themselves who might begin to work with a rescue in the future that the rescue should be reporting the injured and euthanized horses to Doctor Scollay. In fact, no mention in this article either. Do they or do they not want to know the hundreds of injured of horses that limp into rescues?
3. There is no method announced in which those that rescue horses from kill buyer feed lots or the kill pens of livestock auctions can add those injured racehorses who remain solidly within the slaughter pipeline despite bows and applause in press releases for “No slaughter policies” at some race tracks. When contacted that horses that just left their tracks are found at such places and need a ransom paid to save them, they decline to enforce their “no slaughter policy” and allow the horses that just raced at their tracks to become slaughterhouse statistics. In the very same article by Doctor Hogan, she indicates that an amount equal to 50% of the annual Thoroughbred foal crop goes to slaughter each year. Surely, these are horses that did not survive Thoroughbred racing and deserve to be included as death statistics?
Until all 3 of the above injured and dead Thoroughbreds are included in any injury reporting system, the results of such a reporting system will be so lacking of data that they will be statistically irrelevant. ALL horses need to be counted and it can be done if the industry is up to the “transparency” that is stated repeatedly by Tommy Thompson and Alex Waldrop.
While mentioning “transparency”, will the results of such study let us know which racetracks have the most injuries and deaths so a racing owner or trainer can choose the safest track to race their investments? Why would they not be allowed to protect their horses this way? Why not let the public know the results so they can force change by avoiding any wagers at those tracks that fail to provide a safe environment for their horses? Or is that just a little too much “transparency” than what Waldrop and Thompson had in mind?
February 18th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Pam Mahony:
Well, while people fear that their asses will get ejudicated out of the industry (or planet)…information and horses are lost. But I get your point, to a point.
Priscilla Peabody:
Issue isn’t if vets are on site; issue is to whom the vets on track for training are working for.
And let’s be honest….ain’t no freakin’ vet out there, at that hour for THE horse, per se. They may be out there for the trainer, owner or the track or the racing authority (HAHh!). The “cover your ass” brigade” is killing this sport (just read Mahony’s post..litigation, litigation, litigation because (1) the system is screwed up; (2) people lie, cheat, steal; and, (3) NO ENFORCEMENT of uniformed standards…ooops, forgot how to deal with (4) crap happens).
General comment: I don’t think every vet, trainer, owner, rider is out there to screw the horse. But the horse is certainly not the primary importance to ALL those named in my early morning works checklist. It is to get to the race, make the bills and win. Sometimes the horses get lost in that shuffle because it takes time, patience, money and ability. Not all horses are given equal access to human controller smarts, money, etc.
But, as I said… the database is a start. It is however, too slow and not comprehensive.
February 18th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Jo Anne, well said.
February 18th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
The database should be done by a neutral party, it is way too inbred for me.
February 18th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Studying why some horses stay sound and have 30,40,50 and sometimes over 100 starts would also provide data on preventing injuries. Why is it that horses born between 1990 and 1999 averaged 21 starts racing on the same drugs that are allowed now? Horses sired by the top 1% of stallions also averaged 21 starts per runner with 18 starts per foal. According to Sparkman the average number of lifetime starts has dropped to 14(his source is?) . Looking at statisitical summaries on stallionregister or usa.stallionring it seems that quite a few stallions both commercial and non commercial are producing offspring whose average number of lifetime starts are well below 21 yet there are some stallions whose offspring equal or exceed 21 starts. Is anybody studying the role of heredity? Could breeding for soundness prevent many of these injuries?
February 18th, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Hey Mary,
Will the data please include human names associated with the deceased? Haha
February 18th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Or, should I say, the dearly departed?
February 18th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Joann has certainly raised the bar in regards to accuracy and accountability. I believe we can all accept the fact that certain injuries occur in rcaing and those injuries, when diagnosed by a verterinarian, should be reason enough for that animal to be prohibited from racing. Unfortunately, the usual procedure when a trainer discovers their horse has a compromising injury is to put the horse in a claiming race and hope someone else gets “stuck “with the horse. A new concept in autimobile sales is the “car fax” . Maybe racing needs a “horse fax” . That way, when a horse is claimed, his entire veterinary record from the previous connections will become the property of the new connections. And, the claiming rules should be changed that a horse who breaks down in a race is the property and responsibility of the trainer/owner who entered the horse, not the unsusupecting owner who put a claim in.
Most horses on the track are treated by the veterinarian before the race. obviously ther is a huge gap in accountability within the veterinary ranks. For example, if a veterinarian x rays a horse and dteremines that the horse has a hairline fracture, or a torn ligamnet, or a chip that is causing pain on flexsion, that horse should be declared unfit to race until he is re evaluated after rehabilitation. And that declarartion should follow that horse no matter which track he is stabled at or shipped to.
Joann is correct that until the lameness issues of horses going to the rescues is included in the study, the study is skewed. Too often the people that are supposed to be the caretakers of a horse are the people who abuse them the most.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:12 am
To Joann and A. Russek, I applaud you both for your intelligent remarks. I certainly feel that their should be more accountability on the part of the racetrack veterinarians and off course trainers. It is my hope and belief that the trainer under the advice of the vet proceed to enter a horse based on their diagnosis. If this is or is not the case, then we have a much bigger problem here. If it was mandated that the most recent vet records be submitted with every entry in a claiming race, it would certainly change the claiming game.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:14 am
P.S. - And off course also act as a safety net for the welfare of the horse and not the unfortunate bastard with a claim in.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:19 am
One more thing! there are some who choose to make comments either to provoke or make light of such a serious subject. We all need to be accountable and should be more insightful and not make stupid juvenille remarks.
I must now go take my geritol and depart for the night.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:13 am
Ms. Peabody:
Surely you jest about track vets being there for the horses. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially at the lower level tracks. I fostered a horse for 3 weeks until he could be euthanized. He was running at Penn National with SEVERE end stage osteoarthritis and two fractures to his right front ankle. His new owner/trainer (I use the term “trainer” loosely) was giving him some down time so that he could run this horse again! This horse’s story is well documented. His name was SLADE and he was bred by Brereton Jones. I wish I could say that he was an exception, but I have dozens of other true horror stories that I could share with you. Please let me know when you are ready to hear these “dirty secrets”! In the meantime, I applaud the precipitous decline of the racing industry.
February 19th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Well said Joanne!!! I applaud your detailed and accurate analysis!!!
I also must add that I am for any regulation that forces the racing industry and it’s professionals to be accountable. While studies are great and certainly needed right now; there are too many back doors in the racing industry. And yes it comes down to the almighty dollar of who is on who’s payroll or in who’s pocket.
As we all know the horse is just an assest to some in the industry. They may talk as if they are looking out for the best interest of their horses but when no one is looking they are having someone else haul their unwanted horses to the auction and dumped in the kill pens. It happens all too frequently in Michigan!!!!
Furthermore, the network of non-profits and volunteers is scattered and not connected. We all have horror stories but typically there is no paper trail to hold anyone accountable. Furthermore, the. Umber of hands in this issue is many starting with the breeders and moving on to new owners, trainers, jockeys, vets, grooms, track officials, stewards, buyers, sheriff and county officials, animal control officers
Where is the paper trail, the complete transparency……
February 19th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Well said Joanne!!! I applaud your detailed and accurate analysis!!!
I also must add that I am for any regulation that forces the racing industry and it’s professionals to be accountable. While studies are great and certainly needed right now; there are too many back doors in the racing industry. And yes it comes down to the almighty dollar of who is on who’s payroll or in who’s pocket. But as it stands right now there are too many “work arounds” in the system.
As we all know the horse is just an assest to some in the industry. They may talk as if they are looking out for the best interest of their horses but when no one is looking they are having someone else haul their unwanted horses across the boarder to the auction and dumped in the kill pens. It happens all too frequently in Michigan!!!!
Furthermore, the network of non-profits and volunteers is scattered and not connected. We all have horror stories but typically there is no paper trail to hold anyone accountable. The number of hands in this issue is SO many starting with the breeders and moving on to new owners, trainers, jockeys, vets, track officials, stewards, buyers, sheriff and county officials, animal control officers, AND last but most certainly not least AUCTION OFFICIALS. I say that if anyone in that chain drops the ball it should be public knowledge!!!
Where is the transparency in this chain of events and were is the accountability!!! I realize it is a big problem but we have to start somewhere……
Where is the paper trail, the complete transparency……
February 19th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I am an owner/breeder who races homebreds. I have two horses who were injured during races at Turfway and Fairground in Dec 09 & Feb 10 who will not be accounted for. Why? Because they finished their races and their injuries were detected later that day or the next day. The fractures that both sustained could have only occured during their races. The database is useful but incomplete. It needs the ability for owners or trainers to self report injuries that occured during racing.
February 20th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Can we get a list of the facilities that do not report and who to contact?
February 21st, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Mary:
Look at whom the doctor says participates (TJC database should reveal…unless you HAVE TO PAY for it) and then look at the condition book and scratch the named tracks that do submit.
As already stated, why this is so hard to read baffles me in addittion to the tracks that CHOOSE NOT to participate. Factor in the lack of full follow-up (life to death industry folks…life to death [and a KB don't count]) for these athletes and what do we have? A start, but a helluva long way to go.
February 24th, 2010 at 2:34 am
"Window dressing" is not going to work. Why aren't all tracks expected to participate? 1200 horses broke down in tracks across the country in 2008. Are the numbers in yet for 2009? I haven't checked but there is nothing "uniform" or consistent in any of the data. What an irony that it is called "the sport of kings." The only kings in this so called "sport" are the equine athletes whose health and welfare will NEVER be paramount. Horse racing should be banned. "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Mahatma Gandhi