Final Turn : eight belles

Putting the Horse First? - by Dr. Patricia M. Hogan

Blood-Horse Staff — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:12:00 GMT

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.

Long Term Care - by Herb Moelis

Blood-Horse Staff — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:52:00 GMT

On Derby Day 2008 shock waves traveled through the Thoroughbred world. A talented filly named Eight Belles finished second in the Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands (gr. I) but after the finish, the filly stumbled and was euthanized on the track in front of more than 100,000 fans and millions watching on TV. We knew we had to address a problem that has been with us for quite some time. We examined our tracks, drug policies, breeding concepts, and many other things we took for granted.

When are we going to wake up to another very public problem: What happens to racehorses when they finish their racing careers.

There have been laws passed recently that have reduced the number of horses going to slaughter. Additionally, we are seeing the costs of caring for horses, including feed, transportation, hay, and straw, skyrocket. This has translated to more abandoned horses. According to the United States Department of Agriculture data, there are approximately 100,000 unwanted horses in the U.S. each year, a major problem and potential public relations nightmare. The time is now to address it.

Thoroughbred Charities of America (TCA) supports about 200 of the groups that care for unwanted horses. We have seen the increase in the number of horses these groups must care for and the increasing costs and the lack of funding for them. I’ve heard many stories about horses being turned loose on highways and other horror stories for lack of funding. For the Thoroughbred industry to turn a blind eye to this problem will only result in another jolt, probably much worse from an industry viewpoint, than even the Eight Belles tragedy. How do we avoid this and do the right thing before we have People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and others demonstrating and asserting that we are inhumane and uncaring about our horses? How do we avoid having the government step in to regulate?

The answer is we must make owners responsible for the welfare of their horses, both during their racing careers and also when those careers end. If we agree owner responsibility is needed, the question is, “How do we get owners to be responsible?” Education of new owners is a necessity. When a person decides that he would like to participate in the excitement of racing, he should be educated to the reality that after racing the horse must be provided for.

Yet education alone will still not cure the problem. We must find a way to raise a steady and reliable source of money for the care of horses after their racing careers. Having been a founder and president of TCA and having raised in excess of $16 million over 18 years, I fully understand how difficult it is to raise money voluntarily. To depend on voluntary individual donations would be futile.

There is a very logical and simple way to raise money for this purpose. When owners register their foals The Jockey Club requires a registration form to be filed with payment of $200. Why can’t we add $50 to provide for care of the foal for life? This would be similar to a Social Security program for horses.

There are approximately 40,000 Thoroughbreds registered each year. At $50 each the total amount assessed annually would be $2 million. This would go a long way to providing a decent life for all Thoroughbreds after their racing careers. A Social Security system is the most feasible way to help, and The Jockey Club is the most logical agent for this project.

When I proposed this a number of years ago to The Jockey Club, I was told that it would be a burden on owners and there would be strong resistance. The Jockey Club would not implement the assessment, because, I was told, even if they collected the money they would not have the mechanism to distribute the funds. My answer to this is simple. TCA has a comprehensive file on all rescue organizations and would help in the distribution of funds. If an owner cannot afford $50 when registering a foal, then that person has no business being an owner. For the welfare of our industry and the welfare of our horses, this assessment is necessary and reasonable.

Herb Moelis is the president of Thoroughbred Charities of America

Great Pretenders - by E.S. Lamoreaux III

Blood-Horse Staff — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:53:00 GMT

No matter what happens in the June 7 Belmont Stakes (gr. I), the 2008 Triple Crown season will always be defined by the triumph and tragedy of the heir apparent crown prince, Big Brown, and the fallen heroine, Eight Belles. And tradition says that this Belmont, factoring in Big Brown’s pre-race hoof injury, will come up as a “hold your breath,” arduous race that’s guaranteed not to be won in a New York minute.

After a diet of mint juleps and crab cakes, there is less pomp and a heavy dose of New York grit when the racing schedule reaches Belmont. You’ll need all your fingers and half your toes to count the TC “can’t miss” favorites that didn’t make it here.

I was a CBS News television producer covering the Triple Crown of 1969 with commentator Heywood Hale “Woodie” Broun. Majestic Prince, like Seattle Slew after him and Smarty Jones after him and, yes, Big Brown, was undefeated heading into the Belmont. But “The Prince” had suffered a leg injury in the Preakness and his trainer, Johnny Longden, wasn’t sure he was sound enough to run.

With the first undefeated Thoroughbred trying to win the Triple Crown, there was enormous pressure on owner Frank McMahon to go for it. Longden and McMahon argued openly about it. Not only had there not been a TC winner since Citation in 1948, but McMahon’s wife, gossip columnist Betty Betts, wanted desperately to get into The Jockey Club, and saw Majestic Prince as her ticket. On the eve of the race, Woodie Broun interviewed McMahon, who was so nervous and perhaps hungover, that he kept referring to the TC as the “Cripple Crown.” Majestic Prince finished second and never raced again.

Fast forward two years, when Canonero II became the next pretender to the “Cripple Crown” and the last before Secretariat. Canonero was unique in that he had done all of his racing in Venezuela and became a hero to the entire Latin American world. Broun, one of America’s great wordsmiths, was on the scene once again, and wrote the following in his sports memoir Tumultuous Merriment: “The thing one notices at the Belmont…is the very New Yorkness of it. Like the old Manchu Empire, it can swallow up all the invaders that come and either absorb them or outnumber them so that they are no longer visible.

“The great exception at Belmont was the June day in 1971 when Canonero II tried for the Triple Crown. He had been bred in Kentucky to an unfashionable English sire, and because he had a gimpy leg had been sold as a yearling for something like $1,600. This modest beginning may have been the essence of his subsequent appeal. This was a price that poor people could understand.”

Broun wrote that huge numbers of Latinos descended on Belmont Park that day, “a great mass of people, many of whom had never been to the races, with nothing in common but their language and a vague sense that today they were going to show the Anglos and have a good time while they did it. Hundreds of them brought musical instruments and long before the first race, bongo drums were echoing in places where nothing was usually heard but the murmur of old horseplayers mumbling inaccurate information to each other.

“In Caracas the president of Venezuela stood ready to make a speech to the whole world about the connection between a 3-year-old horse and his country’s eminence and the drums were rattling all over Belmont Park.

“Oddly and sadly Canonero’s fourth-place finish that day was one of his bravest races. Subsequent examination showed him to have been suffering from some odd but debilitating illness, and it appeared that he ran through agony and exhaustion of such shattering intensity that he was unable to raise his head for weeks after the race. The drums stopped beating, however, and the crowd straggled home, while the president in Caracas called for his limousine and cursed racing luck, not the first head of state to discover that power ends where chance begins.”

My friend Woodie Broun wrote those words nearly 30 years ago. Funny how they resonate today in both Thoroughbred racing and American politics.

E.S. Lamoreaux III is a four-time Eclipse Award winner and the longtime executive producer of CBS News Sunday Morning with Charles Kuralt.

It Just Is - by Joel Turner

Blood-Horse Staff — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:03:00 GMT

It is what we owners and breeders fear the most. A call from a farm employee, trainer, or vet with that oddly familiar, awkward tone foretelling the bad news we have lost one of our horses. Or, perhaps even worse, in the moment of excitement and anticipation of competition, one of our horses goes down on the track or falls over a jump. The end result is the same. It is as if one’s heart is ripped from within, leaves this earth, or falls in tandem to the ground with it. The loss of a horse to injury, accident, illness, or to the ravages of old age is tough on all horse people. That persistent question comes back to taunt us: Why do we continue to breed, raise, and compete these fragile creatures?

Eight Belles’ unfortunate and untimely death in the Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands (gr. I) has led to enormous criticism of our sport. It has also reminded many of us in the Thoroughbred business of our own significant losses and the pain those losses bring. On the heels of other tragedies in racing (Ruffian, Go for Wand, and Barbaro immediately come to mind) and eventing (the Rolex three-day event at the Kentucky Horse Park the weekend before the Derby was marred by the death of two horses and the serious injury of one rider), there is growing concern for the future of equine sports. Some of us feel compelled to defend equestrian sports in general and horse racing in particular. Our critics ask: How can these losses be justified?

Many close to Larry Jones have described him as a sincere, hard-working, honest trainer who puts his horses first. Not unlike many hands-on trainers in the business, Jones gets personally involved with the day-to-day care and management of the horses in his stable. I am told he often galloped Eight Belles himself. His friends assure me he would not lead a horse to the paddock, as he personally did with Eight Belles on Derby day, unless she was fit for the demands of racing. No one needs to defend him for the decision to run her against the males in the Derby. Eight Belles earned the right, by objective standards, to participate in one of the greatest spectacles in sport.

And no one should criticize equestrian sport without understanding that losing a horse unexpectedly, in or out of competition, changes a horse person’s perspective forever. Those who criticize equestrian sport posit that, if we cannot make the sport absolutely safe, we should stop forcing horses to compete against their will. (One does not even need to address the "against their will" argument; just ask them to explain how a human is going to force a horse to do anything it does not want to do, such as run faster, jump higher, or leave a burning building. If they have the answer, they will have a new vocation with a huge following.)

We continue breeding, raising, and competing our horses because it gives us purpose and pleasure, despite the inevitable risks. It is hard to explain how rewarding it is when our horses do well and even harder to match the sense of accomplishment in any other endeavor. It gives us connection to something greater than the sum of all parts. With our involvement come enormous challenges and responsibilities, some character-building, some exceedingly joyful (watching an awkward foal turned out in a field of green grass for the first time immediately comes to mind), and some painful to the core.

We must continue to take meaningful new steps to try to make equestrian sports safer. New surfaces have been designed and installed. More restrictive race-day medication, more sophisticated drug testing and pre-race detention policies have been implemented.

Perhaps we should also consider and act upon some of the suggestions from those expressing legitimate and well-reasoned concern. It may make sense, and it may appease some of the critics, for instance, to decrease the economic incentives to breed horses primarily capable of racing short, early, and often, and increase incentives to breed horses with stamina and soundness that will be able to race well beyond a 3-year-old campaign. Even as we continue with and expand these earnest efforts to care for our equine athletes and make competition safer, injuries, some fatal to horses and riders, will happen, and we will feel the pain again. It is as inevitable as tomorrow, even with our very best efforts today. It just is.

Joel B. Turner is a breeder, owner, trainer, three-day event rider, and attorney from Louisville, Ky.

Feeling the Chill - by Evan I. Hammonds

Blood-Horse Staff — Tue, 06 May 2008 13:47:00 GMT

Cold lies the heart of Thoroughbred racing following Eight Belles’ untimely end after Kentucky Derby 134. The dark side of the toughest game in town showed itself once again on the national stage, this time in the nation’s biggest race.

Even prior to her tragic ending as the shadows began to lengthen May 3, there seemed to be a chilly vibe to this year’s Run for the Roses in Louisville. And by chill, we don’t mean a hip coolness desired by either Churchill Downs or NBC.

Two of the better story lines to this year’s Derby were both veteran performers. The tale of 70-year-old Bennie Stutts Jr. bringing Smooth Air—his first horse to the Derby—was a gem, as was the return of the New Orleans saints—Louie Roussel III and Ronnie Lamarque, back 20 years after taking two-thirds of the Triple Crown with Risen Star. While both delivered the goods to the media, sharing with us their great stories, they are closer to hip-replacement surgery than to playing to a targeted younger audience.

The weather was a major factor to the week, as on the Tuesday before the Derby, the temperature was a bone-chilling 38 degrees as a crowd gathered on the backstretch. Standing on a wooden stand by the main gap, IEAH Stables’ principals Michael Iavarone and Richard Schiavo took in the scene at the Downs for the first time as owners. They watched as Court Vision, the colt they co-own with WinStar Farm, galloped past, Iavarone in a borrowed coat, Schiavo trying to keep warm in a windbreaker.

While Schiavo told us, “we came here unprepared for the cold,” they did come prepared for the Derby with the right horse, Big Brown, who was in Barn 22, cordoned off behind a roll of yellow police tape.

The downpour midway through the race program on Oaks day—which was expected to come at midnight—threw a wet blanket on the six-figure crowd, most of whom had dispersed by the time Proud Spell ran off with the main prize. Leaving the friendly confines following the Oaks saw traffic that could be considered normal for a Friday afternoon. The wet conditions the next morning kept the usual call to the post to the infield until much later in the afternoon. Throughout the main facility, it seemed to take a long time for the crowd to get caught up in the Derby mood.

However, it may have been much more than the weather that kept a few people from visiting the Twin Spires or the Derby city last weekend. A downturn in many sectors of the nation’s economy—call it what you will—and unprecedented fuel prices taking a chunk out of people’s discretionary income may be to blame. More than a few people noted area hotel rooms weren’t as scarce as before and local restaurants seemed a little more accessible than in years past.

Away from Churchill Downs, many online players were forced to sit chilly with their advance deposit wagering accounts, which didn’t help matters either. The fans are finding it tough to play…and perhaps tougher to watch.

With Barbaro’s breakdown in the 2006 Preakness Stakes (gr. I), followed by his eight-month agonizing struggle for life, and George Washington’s tragic demise in the middle of the stretch at Monmouth Park at last fall’s Breeders’ Cup, racing faces thousands of disenfranchised fans and stares down yet another “code red” in the public relations department. The fact the organization PETA is joining in the fray is cause for major concern.

The Cold War of synthetic surfaces versus dirt tracks continues to rage. Last year’s Derby exacta of Street Sense and Hard Spun was filled out by horses that had made their previous start on Polytrack. This year was a reversal of 180 degrees, as the superfecta was void of a horse that had ever even started on a synthetic track.

One last chilling thought on the Derby is the closest a colt could get to this year’s winner at the finish was 8 1⁄4 lengths. About 48 hours after the Run for the Roses, none of them was likely to head to Baltimore to take him on again in the May 17 Preakness.

Could an undefeated Triple Crown winner help break the ice?