BloodHorse.com

Search Blood-Horse.com

What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

“You know, Doc, that filly you scratched the other day? We X-rayed that ankle, and she had the beginnings of a condylar fracture…”

I hear these words a few times each year when a trainer or private veterinarian is kind enough to give me an update. I am one of several dozen regulatory veterinarians, employed by racing associations or state racing commissions, in those jurisdictions that mandate pre-race inspections of “in-today” racehorses. Not all do.

As always, I spent a few moments mulling over the “what ifs.” What if I had been distracted or in a hurry or burnt out, as all of us get from time to time? What if I had not seen that brief, but very real, hint the filly gave me? She wasn’t “lame,” per se. The trainer was not “trying to get one past” me. She had (permissibly) been given a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory about 18 hours ago. Her legs had (permissibly) been in ice before I got to her. Had I not been “on my game,” I might not have felt what I felt or seen what I’d seen, and I might not have asked the groom to please “go one more time.” I might’ve checked her off as “racing sound” and walked on to the next entrant. 

She may have later been scratched in the post parade by the track veterinarian. But what if she hadn't been? What if that horse had started? Perhaps her rider would have noticed she was uncomfortable and been able to pull her up “uneventfully.” Perhaps by that point she would have aggravated the injury beyond repair, or perhaps not. What if she was on the lead or in traffic and the fracture became complete? What if I had let her go? The best-case scenario would have been a scratch at the gate, in itself undesirable for so many reasons. The worst-case scenario is unthinkable.

The vast majority of regulatory veterinarians are motivated by the good we believe we do, as even in the highest-paying jurisdictions we receive about $6 per horse for our professional judgment. Although by protecting the at-risk horse we are ultimately protecting their interests, our decisions often prove in the short-term to be inherently unpopular to all parties involved: the racetrack, the trainer, the owner. Sometimes the decisions result in litigation. But what if? What if this filly had been entered in a jurisdiction that didn’t require an inspection?

It is the “what ifs” that keep us all motivated to do the best job we can do.

Regulatory veterinarians can’t prevent all racing injuries from occurring, but we can (and do) prevent some. Yet, despite the recommendations arising from The Jockey Club Safety and Welfare Summits (as well as those of the Association of Racing Commissioners International Model Rules), not all jurisdictions require pre-race veterinary inspections. The primary constraint on this practice is, understandably, financial. Racetracks are cutting purses, and state agencies have been forced to undergo significant personnel and budget cuts. Everybody is being asked to do more with less, and this trend can only be expected to continue. But at the same time, state governments are considering expanding or tapping further into the proceeds from gambling as a way to increase their revenues. What if, as a prerequisite to licensing a new racetrack or renewing that of an old one, racing commissions mandated an adequate veterinary pre-race inspection program? I ask you: If a pre-race inspection can prevent just one horse like this filly from competing, how do we as an industry put a price on that? 

Other groups governing the use of animals in sports have pre-event inspection requirements. Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association-sanctioned events, the American Endurance Ride Conference, and the United States Equestrian Foundation competitions are all examples. Interestingly, the RCI Model Rules recommend a pre-race veterinary inspection not just for racehorses but for Greyhounds, as well. The Iditarod Trail Committee requires not only a pre-race physical inspection of its sled dogs, but blood work and electrocardiograms on all dogs prior to competition. Of all of the animals used in these sporting events, the racehorse is the only one asked to carry a rider on its back and the public’s money on its nose. They—and our industry—deserve all the protection we can provide.

Dr. Jennifer Durenberger is a regulatory veterinarian who has worked for racetracks and commissions in New York, Minnesota, and California.

34 Comments:

Thank you for making the tough, unpopular decisions. Now, if we can get certain radio talk-show hosts to stop second-guessing the track veterinarians when they scratch a horse, and get you the respect that you deserve, for the DVM behind your name, the sport would be a lot better. How about a regulation for regular radiographs of participants? Yes, they are expensive, but this shouldn't be a sport done on a shoe-string budget, due to the horrific implications you just presented...

goodwin 03 Feb 2009 12:31 PM

Excellent article as I think you shed some light on an often under-staffed and rarely acknowledged group of individuals that I feel are an important peice of the puzzle.  We owe all those involved, especially the horses, ALL the resources that protect them and the integrity of the sport.

ezevans 03 Feb 2009 12:43 PM

Thank you for what you do and what needs to be done to make this mandatory?  It seems to only make sense that it becomes a requirement.

Jen 03 Feb 2009 2:05 PM

Thank you, Dr. Durenberger. Finally, after all these months (post Eight Belles), if not years, something is published that touches on the real issues. I've actively participated in thoroughbred racing and breeding for nearly 50 years, yet wasn't aware that some jurisdictions fail to require pre-race inspections... The example you offered at the beginning of your piece served to confirm my belief that likely all trainers are ill-equipped to monitor sufficiently the well-being of their trainees. Also, one must assume this horse (in your example) had a regular veterinarian. They too can often miss what can later lead to catastrophic injury. I can well recall one of trainer Larry Jones' published remarks following Eight Belles' demise. He confidently stated that no veterinarian had attended her for the several weeks preceeding the Derby. He wished us to infer from those remarks that he was certain of her soundness. But from what knowledge/experience could he (or any trainer) derive such certainty? Perhaps ego and $ are at the heart of this. There is technology available to enable far better monitoring of these horses. In the end the central issue involves the horses' rights, and our moral responsibilities.        

sceptre 03 Feb 2009 2:18 PM

how shocking is it that TV races still lack mandatory complete pre-race diagnostics?  while such might be prohibitively costly for every race, how can this and minimum pre-event training standards (see Barbaro and Eight Belles) continue to be ignored for TV?

ratherrapid 03 Feb 2009 2:50 PM

It should be obvious to all of us that we as participants in this industry must do everything we can to ensure the safety and well being of our precious race horses. They are, after all, the driving force behind our livelyhood.

Horse racing has undergone such negative publicity since Barbaro, Eight Bells, and the anabolic steroids issue. We need to embrace every effort at our disposal to ensure sound horses enter the gates. Any measures we take to improve racing, such as mandatory pre-race exams, will surely help improve public perception as well.        

Possum 03 Feb 2009 7:37 PM

Thoroughbred racing simply cannot afford high-profile breakdowns.  The recent spate of breakdowns at Santa Anita has people sneering at the installation of the synthetic track surface as mere window-dressing for an industry that destroys its participants.  There are many, many people out there who would love to see racing end.  Kudos to the track vets for keeping potentially unsound horses off the track.

Karin C-C 03 Feb 2009 10:23 PM

Thank you for doing your job and most importantly doing it well. I am married to a jockey and everytime you make the hard call in favor of safety please know that people thank you, their children thank you too.

Amy 04 Feb 2009 10:14 AM

Thank you and all of the other pre-race regulatory veterinarians  for what you do and the unknown lives that you and the others in your profession may have saved, both equine and human.  

Marcia 04 Feb 2009 11:40 AM

I wonder how many horses who needed anti-inflammatory medication 18 hours prior to a race and icing immediately prior have broken down on the track because there was no pre-race veterinary exam or because the vet missed the hint the horse gave that something was wrong.

I also wonder why anti-inflammatories and icing are permitted anywhere near race day.  Symptoms that require anti-inflammatory drugs and icing so soon before a race ought to disqualify the horse from running.

Maybe if these things weren’t permitted, it wouldn’t take an super-alert, super-careful veterinarian to read the horse’s pre-race body language, because maybe the horse would still be exhibiting the readily visible symptoms that were there 18 hours earlier when the anti-inflammatory was administered and before the icing.  

Noelle 04 Feb 2009 1:38 PM

Thanks for what you do.  Vet checks should be mandatory at every track.  There are lives at stake.  Some people seem to think that the horses are expendable.  What about the jockeys?  Every effort should be made to keep both the horses and jockeys safe.

Michelle 04 Feb 2009 3:16 PM

Thank you for what you do, especially in spite of the critics. It is amazing that so many in the business, only see the horse as a "business", and can't treat these beautiful animals with some respect and compassion. Pre-race vet checks should be made mandatory, especially for TV races.

horsenut23 04 Feb 2009 6:29 PM

Thank You for the sometimes thankless job you do every day. It's funny but I commented on this subject some weeks ago on one of the blog sites at Bloodhorse.com. I'll say it again that most commission vets do what's best for the horse and the betting public every day.

Wanda 05 Feb 2009 3:53 PM

Amen, Noelle, my sentiments exactly.  When our horses would periodically get a leg injury, the vet didn't even want them to have bute (pain-killer) because the more it hurt, the less the horse moved around on it & subsequently the faster it healed.

Terry 05 Feb 2009 4:35 PM

Thanks you for all the lives you have saved both human and equine. May many other vets and racetracks read this column and learn from it. If we don't take the extra steps it takes to safe guard our horses and the jockeys that ride them we will either 1) have some outside agency do it for us or 2) be shunned and shut down for being deemed inhumane and down right stupid.

Rggc 06 Feb 2009 9:00 AM

This is a great article to read. Thank you for all you do to make racing safer for the horses and jockeys.  You obviously care very deeply as most Vets do.  Vets are well paid but they do a difficult job well and deserve to be.   Hope you can keep getting the message across and that racing becomes a safer sport all round!

God Bless

Best Wishes

Abbie

Abbie Knowles 06 Feb 2009 1:32 PM

We had a new state vet at Bay Meadows a few years ago, and she insisted that all horses trot for her during the morning pre-race inspection.  Now, usually the vets only request that you just walk at the most, but often they just have us turn them around in the stall.  We all know that if you want to see unsoundness, you'd better trot them.  But all the horsemen howled, because you could stand 50 feet away and see whether or not your neighbor's horse was a good claim, or a layup about to happen.  So horsemen complained that they would lose all their good horses by claim and she left shortly after that.

IMHO, we ought to have a privacy barn that everyone has to report to with their horse for a soundness examination.  And then the horse ought to be vigorously trotted on a hard surface.  That would separate the wheat from the chaff.

Sandra 06 Feb 2009 4:43 PM

I see people saying "especially for races on TV or top races". That disgusts me. Are you saying that because $5000/maiden claimers are less important than the horses in the spotlight? This should be an industry wide mandatory practice. If a racetrack cries poverty at $6 / horse, than maybe the tracks management doesn't really care about other safety measures either. I hope that these inspections become wide widespread soon. Until then, be careful out there,everyone

downhomesunset 07 Feb 2009 4:19 AM

Any horse that needs bute, banamine, heavy icing or pain blockers like Equi-Block or EPF (which are fantastic by the way for horses recovering from injuries) should not start. End of story. Sound horses are not hard to find if we take care of them and take it easy when they are off their game. Simply taking the time to build bone density, muscle and cardio health and to see a potential flare up would save lives.

Amanda 07 Feb 2009 11:05 PM

Agree with downhomesunset's sentiments...But, most of the comments expressed on this blog seem to suggest that these pre-race vet "inspections" are a near cure all. Yes, they're better than nothing, but are a far cry from adequately (or reasonably) protecting these innocent creatures. If we really cared about them , we'd insist on a far more comprehensive oversight. These track vets should be more up front in voicing the inadequacies of their inspections.  

sceptre 08 Feb 2009 7:15 PM

I have seen many trainers, who have no business with a trainers licence. They often try to sneak an unsound horse past the pre-race exam,and the result is all too predictable. Racing should go back to hay, oats and water. Zero drugs, is the best policy for the safety of both horse and rider.

Asst. Hotwalker 08 Feb 2009 10:32 PM

Bravo to all the hard-working vets doing this work. All tracks should do these inspections. Will it solve all the problems? No. But if racing is to truly be the noble sport it is portrayed as, we must do everything we can to help the horse succeed.

Katie 09 Feb 2009 11:50 AM

Dr. Durenberger makes a noble and important set of points.  I have been there many times as a commission veterinarian.  It all comes down to the conviction of doing the best job you can possibly do, not the most popular job believe me.  I have been shouted at, shunned and challenged on exactly such a call.  Keep on with integrity !

doc 10 Feb 2009 7:22 AM

sceptre: I don't think for a minute that these inspections are a "near cure all" but there is a moral issue at stake as well. You can't keep running a horse that isn't 100%, and owners put pressure on trainers to enter. If you have educated owners maybe it would help but I like the idea of NO pre-race meds someone else commented on. The whole mind set on training would do a 180 turn if you had to give them time off for minor injuries.

Wanda 10 Feb 2009 11:11 AM

Wanda, certainly this all about the morality issue. Yes, I suppose with no meds available to them, less injuries would be "masked", but icing also masks injuries. To repeat, however,- many lesions with potentially devastating consequences go unnoticed by trainers and vets. Notice what occurred at the Fair Grounds during training a few weeks ago. Their trainers and vets (including the association's vet) were essentially dumbfounded. Clearly our racehorses require far closer scrutiny and more sophisticated observation. One can easily argue that until such exists (or is routinely practiced) there is no place for horseracing.

sceptre 11 Feb 2009 8:44 PM

Excellent article and thought provoking.  If x-rays become the standard.....After trotting out on a pavement ....then....Digital X-rays should be cheaper and much quicker.  They can also quickly be referenced over time to check progression of healing or injury or re-injury.

I often see the argument they (horses) should all be out free and in the wild.  In the wild, if there is a problem, the infirm become dinner.  It is swift, it is not  gentle, it is survival of the most fit.  They do not get retired to breed.

Nancy J 12 Feb 2009 11:25 PM

Yeah what if?  Great article and just imagine what if with our past fatalities.  We will never know but what if.  

Good job!

stardust 14 Feb 2009 6:40 PM

What I believe is that if this reall were to occur, the fields would be a lot smaller.  There would be a lot of horses scratched and in the barn instead of dead on he track with a breakdown.  I think this is s great idea.  Love this article and all people that love horses should not have one problem with it.  

stardust 14 Feb 2009 6:43 PM

Asst. Hotwalker

Right On.  I totally agree. :)

stardust 14 Feb 2009 6:44 PM

sceptre: Yes I agree about x-rays but until owners start requesting them for the welfare of their horses, some trainers will not ask to have them done. As far as icing before they run it has been in my opinion overrated. Better to ice them in between races if there is any heat than try to do it race day. By the time they go to the gate any numbness has worn off.

Wanda 15 Feb 2009 12:34 PM

Dr. Durenberger,

    As a thoroughbred owner I appreciate the job that you do.  I have run by own horses down the shed row for vets.  The only problem that I see with this type of inspection is related to my own 62 yr. old legs.  If you saw me run my first steps in the gym, you would call an ambulance early.  But if you came back after I was warmed up, you might marvel at the 20 ft. jump shots I was making.  Aren't there some horses who are sound, but need to work out the "kinks"?

Gary 15 Feb 2009 12:52 PM

Wanda, it seems we're essentially on the same page...As far as the icing issue: my point simply was that it can (at times) mask some problems (i.e. mask them from the vet's pre-race inspection). As to the x-rays, etc.: I'm well aware that most owners and/or trainers won't agree to such regular expenses-if they did this may not be an issue. I'm suggesting that much closer scrutiny is required so that many catastrophic injuries can be avoided. There is also a blood test (supposedly inexpensive) which may soon become available that will detect some early bony abnormalities-this will help, but is likely too limited in its scope. So it will cost many bucks for us to far better protect these horses. One method would be to insist on timely regular monitoring of this kind (scans, x-rays, etc.) at the owners' expense. Another could be for the expense to be incurred by the individual tracks/state, etc.    

sceptre 16 Feb 2009 5:24 PM

Gary

Brain exercise works our brains so we can stay healthy mentally when we get older.  Physical exercise is very important as well to stay in good shape.  It totally makes sense that with any animal, not just a horse, the same would hold true.  I find that when I don't exercise, I get really sluggish and stiff and tend to get more injuries.  I like your post.  

sceptre  What is the main reason for not getting the x-rays.  I would think maybe money?  I feel that it would be worth it to a trainer or owner to spend that extra money to make sure their horse is really ready for the race.  Just an added expense but worth it.  I guess I am thinking out loud.  

stardust 18 Feb 2009 11:40 AM

sceptre:You are so right, we are on the same page. Bottom line is do right by every horse you have in the barn. Not just the ones next to the tack room.

Wanda 19 Feb 2009 10:12 AM

Leave a Comment

All comments are moderated and must be approved before they are posted. The blog author reserves the right to edit or omit any comment.

  (Appears with your comment) (required)
  (Will not be published) (required)
  (required)

Final Turn

Click Here to download BloodHorse.com Widgets!