WHERE SHOULD WE PUT THE BLAME FOR CALIFORNIA’S INCREASED FATALITIES?
In an article from The San Diego Union-Tribune, recently released data shows that the last two years of racing have produced the most fatalities of any two-year period in California racing history.
However, equine medical director Rick Arthur contends this is due to the increased number of starts at Golden Gate after the closing of Bay Meadows and contends the reduction in deaths per 1,000 races is proof things are better than they were before.
Read it at The San Diego Union-Tribune
Then come back to the Paulick Report and let us know what you think
Tags: Bay Meadows, bradford cummings, Golden Gate, Paulick Report, rick arthur, The San Diego Union-Tribune
February 24th, 2010 at 11:47 am
a bit of a breakdown of the 320 fatalities from july 1, 2008 through june, 30 2009:
129 - racing (40.3%)
100 - training (31.3%)
91 - other (28.4%)
91 of the deaths were non-racing/training related (28.4%); these deaths were attributed to colic, neurological diseases, etc.
of the 129 racing deaths, 44 occurred on synthetic tracks (34.1%). los alamitos accounted for a staggering 67 deaths (51.3%)
of the 100 training deaths, 73 occurred on synthetic tracks (73%); the rest were on dirt
of the 229 combined deaths that occurred through racing/training, 117 were on synthetics (51.1%); 105 were on dirt (45.9%); and 7 were on turf (3.1%)
i would think dr. arthur’s deaths per starters is a much more accurate gauge of the safety of synthetics.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
WHERE SHOULD WE PUT THE BLAME FOR CALIFORNIA’S INCREASED FATALITIES?
A: Dr. Rick Arthur and the CHRB
For continuing to distort the facts simply to justify this grandiose mistake called “Synthetics Mandate”.
It has caused more problems than it has solved.
Now how about raiding California backstretches and finding out why jnearly every race
conducted in the southland race features a horse(s) requiring 45 days - 90 days - 6 months (or more) “rest”.
California racing wasn’t like this 20 years ago.
February 24th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Richard Shapiro
February 24th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
knight sky, just curious–what figures do you believe dr. arthur is distorting? and on what figures or statistics do you base your judgement?
February 24th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Once again, too many variables in the California fatality equation to accurately evaluate the effect of synthetics on catastrophic racehorse injuries.
Age of horse, class of horse, trainer’s class (or lack thereof), horse’s medical history, medication history, blah blah blah. Trainers and track vets keep doin’ what they’re doin’, you can run on racetracks surfaced with angels’ wings, and it won’t make a rat’s ass worth of difference.
Alcohol blocks and nerving… Running 12YO geldings to death for $4K… Sick bunch of sleazy trainers on the GG backside, and why doesn’t anybody talk about THIS aspect of the California death equation???
February 24th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
LJB,
I totally agree with you. It’s not the surface it’s the condition of the horse running on that surface…any surface! What’s the argument for multiple breakdowns at a DIRT track like Penn? Trainers and owners are always looking for an excuse to justify the breakdowns…”part of the game, bad step, bad track”…. When has a trainer ever said “shouldn’tve run the sore horse”. that’s a phrase you’ll never hear or see in writing.
February 24th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Follow the money. Rick Arthur and Craig Fravel along with Keenland/Polytrack/Martin Collins International are the biggest chearleeders for this junk.
Synthetic surfaces are the biggest fraud in the history of horse racing in the United States.
Is anyone going to be held accountable? Probably not!
February 24th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Regardless of blame, its a lesson that 1) regulators should stay out of matters which should properly be handled by tracks and its horsemen and, 2) horse racing will likely forever have fatality rates which exceed threshold limits of a certain percentage of the general population
February 24th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
lucas #4 -
Numerous articles in trade publications have put to question the validity of the statistical data disseminated to the public. For years a lot of us have come across the incompleteness of the data presented at the CHRB website. A link that I would post for you but I cannot find that url at this moment.
Secondly, how forthcoming will any statistical study be when it asks for horsemen on the backside to reveal candidly the nature of the injury to Dr. Scollay and her staff? The claiming game (and the racing game in general) is all about playing it close to the vest. Being open and forthcoming about hurting horses in their barn is atypical of the modern horseman. In other words the reporting of racehorse injuries is extremely subjective.
After 4 years of experimentation and at a cost of $60-$80+ million in the state of California
we are not significantly better off than we started in the arena of racehorse safety. That much was promised.
For roughly that same sum a SuperLab testing program could have been started and we would certainly be seeing the fruits of such a mechanism. A program that could have ushered in stringent enforcement of illegal medications, including the administration of anabolic/corticosteroids on a regional level. A program that would have been the envy of other racing states.
As we await the word from Santa Anita that they will be installing a modernized dirt main track that allows for meaningful Derby prep races to be run during the winter meet….
I ponder who will bear the cost for yet another new main track at Santa Anita Park?
Will it be the horse racing customers around the country in the form of increased takeout rates?
The bettors around the country did not call for this mandate and they should not be held liable to pick up the tab for repeated administrative mistakes.
February 24th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Fatalities are down at Santa Anita. Equibase data show that synthetics overall are safer and more consistent than dirt.
The Thoroughbred Times research shows that a “review of pari-mutual handle at the eight North American tracks that switched from dirt to synthetic surfaces reveals these tracks have increased handle 1.28% since making the change.” Feb. 20 issue, “Cushion to recession’s blow”
Boosted field sizes at synthetic tracks have benefitted handle. Field sizes are larger because horses have been kept sounder.
February 24th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Who’s to blame?
Rick Arthur, 25%, Richard Shapiro 25%, Craig Fravel 25%, and all the rest of us who KNEW this was a bad idea but did nothing about it and are still letting Fravel and Arthur fill us with more B.S., 25%.
Now that Shapiro is gone (good riddance!), Arthur and Fravel are the two most dangerous people in horse racing.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
1. Not one of the Southern California racing associations properly installed their synthetic surfaces.
2. Not one of these racing associations has learned the secret to keeping the surfaces in good shape, which is to leave them alone. They should fire the track superintendents and hire a bunch of cops to keep machinery off the tracks after the surface has been prepared prior to the first race of the day.
3. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.
4. Horsemen and the State have done more to ruin the breed by using “permissive” medication than all of the farm managers that “screw” with yearlings’ limbs and breeders that breed only to sell.
5. As I wrote a few weeks ago, follow the money.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Get rid of this stuff. No matter what surface is installed, horses WILL breakdown. At least make it on dirt so it’s apples to apples. I had enough of the PLASTIC PARTY. I don’t wager on it. I don’t beieve Championships should be decided on it. I can’t stand it. I hope everyone who invested in this synthetic crap lose their shirt. Jerry Moss, although not a good loser, was the only intelligent person at the board meeting. Listen to the trainers, More than 70% want dirt. Let them have it.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Barry,
1. Racing associations do not install the tracks. Racetracks do. Often with a kickback from the manufacturer.
2. You can’t leave the surface alone. At Del Mar the surface temperature hit 150%. Hooves were being affected. They had to put water down or else everybody dies.
3. Rick Arthur and Craig Fravel lie. Period.
4. More than medication, too many race dates, too high costs, too much pressure on trainers to put the horse on the track.
5. The money went from Keenland to Del Mar.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
Mark A. #13 wrote:
More than 70% (trainers) want dirt. Let them have it.
_______________________
The general public is even more adamant about what is best for Santa Anita.
Santa Anita deserves to get back on track with traditional main track racing.
Any choice other than a modern dirt course renders the California road to the Derby irrelevant.
And possible future Breeders Cups possibilities in Arcadia also go out the window with yet another mistake.
_______________________
Santa Anita should convert from Pro-Ride to which surface after the meet?
modern and conventional dirt course 234 86%
Tapeta 17 6%
Polytrack 11 4%
leave the current Pro-Ride surface intact 10 3%
Total Votes 272 Racing Fans Poll created on January 18, 2010.
February 25th, 2010 at 2:53 am
The grand poo-bahs lie, horses die.
February 25th, 2010 at 3:08 am
Good racing surfaces cause less injuries and fatalities than drugs, thugs and no safety net for horses to fill and insane number of races.
Even though the “inventory” is supposed to be down from 4,000 horses to 2,800 in Southern California, I don’t see tracks eliminating races to save the “inventory”. Something has to give and its the horses of course, drugged and raced into the ground. Next year will be worse as many Thoroughbreds have left farms for slaughter.
Synthetic were installed to get more races out of horses. Horses are still pushed over the edge no matter what the surface is, so killings continue just the same. Everyone is still refusing to take responsibility for causing most of the carnage. It is so much easier to blame a racing surface than blaming themselves, including owners, trainers, vets, drugs and all who allow unfit and infirm horses to race to death.
A horse was dropped from $90,000 claiming to $10,000 claiming from one race to the next on synthetic at Santa Anita. The horse’s death was not caused by the surface but because some characters were hell bent into trying to get 10K out of him and because racing is bankrupt, everyone between that barn and the starting gates ignored the huge, bloody red flag.
No one protected Thorn Song from racing in the Eddie Read last year either. That poor horse has been fighting for his life ever since.
No surface can save horses against the current out-of-control, toxic, bankrupt state of racing and its junkies.
February 25th, 2010 at 5:44 am
There’s more to the safety argument than surfaces.
Training on medication - as a way of life - is akin to basing the servicing of a car fleet on disconnecting all warning lights. Ironically a hard dirt track might possibly keep some horses [that would be borderline risky on synthetic] so sore that even the most optimistic examination cannot pass them to race.
There is probably a strong argument for adopting European shoeing on synthetic surfaces - and many of the “new type” of injuries being seen are likely due to an aggressively shod foot not sliding at all on the much more cohesive surface.
Horses are much more adaptable to different surfaces than bettors realise. Most of them will go perfectly happily, and perform consistently, on anything between good to firm and good to soft. A properly installed and maintained artificial track should be able to deliver within that range most of the time; on the odd occasion when such is not the case you just have to deal with it.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Breeding…….Period. The vast majority of horses running today are bred for brilliance young. Simply put, they are in-bred back to satisfy the out of whack commercial guidelines. In-breeding produces a fragile horse. It doesn’t matter what surface these horses are running on, they will “chip up” by the time they are three. The commercial breeding needs a paradigm shift. Breeders need to steer towards larger gene pools. Breed horses for endurance. Adena Springs is a good example of a farm that endorses the out-cross method. Most others take the cue from the past and continue the fragile direction. Everyone thinks that the superstar three year olds are retired due to economics, this is not true. They are hurt. Their pedigree catches up with them. This year will show the truth. The market is so depressed. let’s see how many retire.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Bill - I posted this on the Moss string…
The biggest problem is that too many people see the track surface as the root of all problems. The surface alone is not responsible for causing/saving horses: It’s a combination of the condition of the horse running (and, obviously, how many pain-killing meds and diuretics he’s on), the shoes he’s wearing (using toe-grabs on a synthetic track is beyond stupid - using them on any surface is dangerous) and the sharpness of the turns and size of the track. If America could come up with one track - just ONE - as a test case using any surface you like, with wide turns and a long home stretch, no medication allowed in the horses and no toe-grabs on the shoes, I’ll bet your fatality rate would plunge. Can’t anybody try this just ONCE?????
February 25th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Simply put, to answer the original question: the trainer.
Flame away.
February 25th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
If all drugs were banned 4 to 8 weeks before each race and on race day, most equine safety and welfare problems would be solved because only healthy, fit and racing sound horses would race and the industry would be forced to take far better care of horses.
Racing dates should be adapted to the number of healthy horses available. It is destructive and counter-productive to fit horses to pre-determined, greedy racing dates, then beg trainers for whatever they’ve got to fill too many races however cheap they are written to accommodate the spent and lame left-over horses, then drug them, block them, pass them and race them.
The problem is that the welfare of horses matters too little, racing is all about money and too many get rich drugging and racing injured horses.
Which fatalities are officially counted and which ones are not? The CHRB is still not releasing season and career ending injury figs to avoid questions like where all these horses are now and how many lost their lives. The real fatality numbers are much higher than official figs.
No way says:
“Breeding…….Period. The vast majority of horses running today are bred for brilliance young.”
I believe that unsound breeding for “brilliance young” is only a symptom of being in racing for money and ego, instead of the sport and pleasure to race sound, happy and mature horses like the Mosses do. The patient nurturing of the tall Zenyatta is a perfect example. How rewarding patience, class and priotirizing the welfare and safety of horses can be.
It should be soundness, sportsmanship and moral values which dictate how horses are raced and bred. Instead it is money: the rich two year old races, the mania preceding the KY Derby and TC races and the value breeders place on one or two brilliant races without even knowing if that brilliance was chemically induced or not or what soundness problems were numbed.
Since equine medical records are secret, no one can find out how strong or weak horses and their racing records truly are. Owners, the trainers they choose and drugs they are willing to use to race their horses have the most influence on soundness.
For Planting Time, Gambling Rent and all other dead $2,000 claimers at Los Alamitos:
Los Al is where Thoroughbreds race for bottom-level claiming tags year around, where according to two Orange County Register investigative reporters a trainer with 22 drug positives including for amphetamines was (is?) still licensed by the CHRB and able to drug and race horses. Dr. Allred owns the track. He made his money in the abortion business. Bloody businesses.
February 25th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I remember Michael Dickinson talking about synthetic tracks before California began installing them, and he flat-out insisted that racing fatalities would drastically decrease with synthetics. It wouldn’t be close because synthetics were so much safer.
He didn’t mention, at the time, all the excuses that are now so commonplace for synthetic apologists. Dickinson was wrong, the CHRB was duped and companies (Dickinson, Collins, Keeneland etc…) made tens of millions of dollars off their marks.
They sold us a fairy tale, and California bought it.
February 25th, 2010 at 2:08 pm
My opinion: It ain’t about surfaces! It’s about trainers and the horses they decide to put on the track with all conditions taken into consideration (owners, state, surface, drugs, conditions, weather, jocks, yahduhuah!)
What is so flaming hard to figure out????? Ahhh…that would be NO standards or enforcement of same. Same for bettors.
Simply retarded….but keep on with diddle away racing…keep diddling….short term gratification with little production. In the short term it’s good for you personally, but does little for the industry.
February 25th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
I was an outrider at OBS in ocala both before and after they installed a synthetic surface and I can tell you that it greatly reduced our fatalities. I’m not saying it reduced our injuries, but it did lessen the fatalities. I outrode at Keeneland briefly and the surface there was phenomenal. I also outrode at Gulfstream Park which is dirt. For a dirt surface it’s one of the best, but personally I’ll take the synthetic any day. Everyone talks about their preference but unless you’re a rider you can’t really understand the difference. You need to FEEL it to really understand what the horses feel. I outride on 13-1400 pound ponies and I breeze thoroughbreds and I can tell you that a properly installed synthetic “gives back” to the horse. That’s the best way I can describe the feeling. A good synthetic is also much more consistant than dirt. I believe that to reduce fatalities racing needs to look at reducing medication and not focus so much on surfaces. Stay out of those joints and you’ll see an instant reduction in fatalities.
February 25th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
#25 The first first hand report on the surface I’ve seen. Will it get more credence than the second hand ones that seem to predominate - I doubt it, but at least Barry Irwin and G. Rarick are getting some support.
It’s always unpopular to be right too soon.
February 25th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Great Post. Really it will help lot of people. Thanks for the post.
February 25th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
It is not about surface…it’s about horsemanship. I’m personally getting sick and tired about this argument as if it , in some form ultimately releases trainers of any culpabilty.
Hey, TRAINERS!!!!! Surface not good….then don’t run your horses.
This is crap and I’m tired of the debate. The track is what it it is. You don’t like it then don’t run on it. That will shut down CA or any other track. Walk with your bucks you idiots! Or your gambling dollars.
And you anti syn people…I’m so tired of you (repeat).
OK. I get it…ain’t dirt, you don’t like it. I mean, seriously…this argument is getting totaly stupid. Some tracks have it, some don’t. You don’t like syn’s? Move to those tracks other disecting the likes of Shapiro and The Cal board. This is just so freaking stupid.
Reminder, this isn’t about dirt v. syn (my passion has always been turf and distance AND jumpers). Seems somehow steeplechasers and jumpers take on all comers, surface and weather included.
I’m done here, but I’m sure many will come back and tell me how stupid, wrong and never a fan I am.
You want to watch racing…watch point-to-points, and steeplechase (flat also).. These owners and trainers, jocks are awesome But most of the country doesn’t have access..
Divide and conquer folks, divide and conquer. Please keep talking about syn’s while the industry is going down in flames.
February 25th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
I have been to Los Alamitos many times and after most races, there are owners and trainers giving horses away after the race in the holding barns. Some state they don’t want to pay for the van ride home. This is the level of racing there. One friend claimed a mare running on three legs just to save her. The mare was the first winner for a prominent California owner couple. When contacted to help care for the mare they did not respond. This is happening all over the country. Owners and syndicates dump horses to the smaller tracks and injuries occur. The law allows the use of Bute pre race so the horse passes the vet exam and injuries happen. I am not sure it is the surfaces as much as the rules. Give me one good reason for the use of Bute other then to mask pain. If a horse is in pain, then something is wrong. Rick Arthur needs to change the medication laws then do a study.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Jr,
Ban bute! That would be the day…do you know how many races would go unfilled!!!!
this industry will never do what NEEDS to be done. Play around and blame track surfaces, whatever…but never, never, never admit the breakdowns are due to bad breeding and training practices.
February 26th, 2010 at 2:00 am
#30 Everyone is part of your bute problem, not just trainers and their owners, but tracks and bettors who want more opportunities and full fields. Not to mention vets!
Our racing has a tremendous amount of things wrong with it but medication is not one of them because of the penalties.
Our surfaces are less likely to be hard but we do race a lot on very soft ground which is “rotten” and rough from over watering and over use. Our bettors seem to take track variations in their stride {please no comments here about takeout, we’ve done that, I apologised to Maury, I think,- then realised I’d misbelieved his figures and retracted}.
I doubt if breeding has that much to do with it, we see plenty of sound US breds - so do you.
Probable recipe: altered training to better prepare for battle, greatly reduced medication, less aggressive shoeing and continued experimentation with syntheticsynthetic, focussing upon installation and maintenance.
February 26th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Well well well funny there is way LESS racing in Cali but the number of deaths still don’t significantly tail off at all as they should just by the pure decrease in races full stop . Now just take a minute to think about what that really means and explain to me what exactly is going on past the spin that Cali is so bad at managing even when times were good.