Final Turn : horse health

Unprecendented Progress - by Alex Waldrop

Blood-Horse Staff — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:07:00 GMT

It was just a matter of time.

Even though the Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands (gr. I) is a month away, the spotlight is shining brightly on safety issues relating to Thoroughbred racing. Recent media accounts provide ample evidence that over the next two months, and perhaps for a much longer period, we are going to be under the microscope like in no other time as we near the one-year anniversary of Eight Belles’ tragic accident and the controversial events surrounding last year’s Triple Crown.

Expect well-organized, well-funded animal rights activists—the same ones who recently worked to ban dog racing in Massachusetts and fox hunting in England—to portray our sport and those of us who derive our livelihood or enjoyment from it as inhumane, uncaring, and greedy. When possible, they will seize upon sympathetic news outlets and legislators to advance their agenda. They will be joined by a small but vocal group of opportunists seeking to promote their own agenda in what has become an annual rite of spring.

At the same time, many sincere, well-meaning people—who are tired of current medication policies, who are frustrated that not enough progress has been made, or who support federal intervention as the only means to reform the industry—will find themselves in an odd marriage of convenience with these extremists and opportunists.

The better approach in my view and one we are striving to follow at the National Thoroughbred Racing Association is healthy debate combined with transparency and collaboration. This is the process that led to the formation of the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance. Nonetheless, our customers, media, and even industry participants have every right to be skeptical about meaningful reform within our industry. Let’s be honest: We are a sport rich in tradition that historically has not embraced change. That is, until recently.

In the past 10 months alone anabolic steroids have been effectively banned in the racing jurisdictions representing 99.6% of pari-mutuel handle on Thoroughbred horse races.

Nearly 80 racetracks are participating in a new national injury reporting system that will provide comprehensive data for the scientific research our industry is proactively supporting to foster a safer racing environment.

National standards have been adopted with regard to horseshoe and hoof care that will lead to fewer equine injuries and greater health and safety for both horse and rider.

Virtually every major racetrack in North America—along with owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys, veterinarians, regulators, and even fans—have pledged their support to the NTRA Alliance. A rigorous accreditation process, similar in structure to those utilized in other fields such as health care and education, is under way.

Four-term Wisconsin Governor and former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson has been retained to measure the industry’s progress and ensure transparency.

What astounds me is the number of people in our industry who either don’t understand or refuse to acknowledge the unprecedented progress the industry has made on the medication front over the last several years. Race-day medications have been virtually eliminated nationwide. Testing protocols have vastly improved, and there is promise of even more progress soon.

The perceived lack of progress on the medication front is no doubt due to our industry’s lack of consensus on one single issue—the race day administration of Salix (furosemide). This is easily the single-most divisive medication issue in this industry and one that will not be easily or quickly resolved.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether our work to improve safety and integrity goes far enough or has happened fast enough. These are legitimate questions. Important strides, however, have been made toward improving the health and safety of our human and equine athletes.

Rest assured you will read or hear a lot about what is wrong with our sport over the coming weeks. A less sensational, but more accurate, portrayal is one that acknowledges the strides we have made in the adoption of uniform policies involving safety and integrity matters. Ultimately, our customers will determine whether we are following through on our pledge to reform.

In the meantime, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of progress.

Alex Waldrop is the president and CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association

What If? - by Dr. Jennifer Durenberger

Blood-Horse Staff — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:48:00 GMT

“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.