The American Association of Equine Practitioners recently released its
White Paper containing veterinary recommendations for improving the
safety and welfare of the Thoroughbred racehorse. It is an admirable
effort and contains many constructive suggestions for the racing
industry to consider. But in reality, the AAEP is a continuing
education organization for veterinarians that relies on voluntary
membership and has no ability to enforce these suggestions for policy
even within its own membership, let alone within the racing industry as
a whole. Elvis Presley put it so well—how about “a little less
conversation and a little more action please.”
In case anyone
reading this publication has been living under a rock, public
perception is king these days. And animal welfare issues are at the
forefront of the public’s concerns. As veterinarians involved with
racing, we have been woefully unprepared to meet the challenges put
forth by the public concerning the welfare of the racehorse. When the
issue of horse slaughter was brought to the public stage a few years
ago, both the AAEP and the American Veterinary Medical Association
aggressively spoke out in favor of the practice without anticipating
the tremendous public backlash that would ensue. The AAEP’s strategic
move to then officially change the term “slaughter” to “horse
processing” in all future discussions on the subject just added fuel to
the fire and further contributed to the public’s growing mistrust of
veterinarians. Perhaps taking a neutral position on the politics of
slaughter and, instead, putting our efforts into demands for revisions
of the welfare and humane-care violations surrounding this issue would
have been more befitting of veterinarians in the average person’s mind.
With half of the annual Thoroughbred foal crop going to slaughter every
year, this vocal stance taken by the veterinary community tends to warp
the public’s previously treasured “James Herriot” view of veterinarians
and has caused great pause and confusion. To this end, we have
encountered credibility issues.
We live in an age now where very
little is truly discreet. The use of the Internet and visual
communication has made the dissemination of information rapid, and
often graphic. To some degree, this has hurt racing terribly. When
faced with troubling images associated with our sport—whether it be the
trials of racehorses shipping from the backstretch to the
slaughterhouse, Eight Belles in a heap at the end of the Derby with the
winner’s circle celebration commencing just a short distance away, or
the reports of trainers and/or veterinarians under investigation for
medication violations—often it is just the perception that is the
reality to the public. It does not really matter if we have
explanations for these situations that may make sense to those of us
within the industry. What matters is what appears to be obvious to the
average person. We ask the public to embrace our sport, follow the
careers of our stars, even join track fan clubs for the very elite
performers, and yet we have no plausible explanation for the shocking
paradox that exists concerning the lack of care and the eventual demise
of the poor performers. It is becoming painfully obvious that the irony
has not been lost upon the general public.
The concerns with the
overuse of medications, breakdown injuries, the slaughter of
racehorses, and the often “tabloid-like” reporting of medication
overages, etc., have suddenly thrust the racetrack veterinarian into
the role of the villain, or at least an accomplice, in some of these
situations. With few exceptions, that is just not the case. But the
impression exists because we have not prepared an offense and are
merely playing catch-up defense. And because we do not truly understand
our opponent: public perception. 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.
If we want to be “part of
the solution,” then we truly need to examine our role in the problem,
and actually put our own house in order. Put some “teeth” into our
bite. But that commitment needs to come from within our own circle
before we can expect our advice to be heeded by other factions within
the racing industry.
If we had been truly living by the mantra
of “putting the horse first,” many of the issues we are facing today
would simply not exist.
United we stand, divided we fall. That
statement has never been more true for horse racing. And for the
veterinary community supporting it.
Dr. Patricia Hogan, a veterinary surgeon and AAEP member, operates Hogan Equine in Cream Ridge, N.J.
