Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Facing Reality — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:46:22 GMT

WFG:

Your basic concept about funding at the end is something already done. Let me clarify for those still on this board:

Only certain races have entry fees. Allowance races and claiming races do not which are where most of the horses run. I do support a mandatory (not owner's choice)fee per horse entered as is currently done at Fingerlakes in NY and that amount is then MATCHED by the racetrack itself. However, the amount should be much higher than required at Fingerlakes. Fingerlakes (loud applause!!) also is the only track in the country that has set aside land for their onsite rescue. The total of these two amounts could be set aside for donation to whatever rescue that particular track has a contract or agreement with but it is not fair for only the owners to bear the cost of this entry fee -- the track is making money because their horse is racing and risking its life and limbs on their racetrack.

Currently, through legislation, racing does fund the various things you mentioned (plus some you did not) by percentages from the total wagered. You can probably find each state's racing legislation through a search that will show you what the amounts are for any particular racing state. To make any change in that distribution would require amending each state's racing legislation which would probably be met with great resistance but that is PRECISELY the best way to generate the main source of funds for the horses. Currently, just as an example, this is what usually happens to the total amount wagered in a state: The states and local governmental units are the first to step in and take a percent for taxes. Out of this they fund the things you mentioned such as racing commissions, regulatory veterinarians, collection and testing of samples, enforcement and oversight of the welfare of the horses and integrity of racing (and it could be most reasonably argued tht many states fail miserably at this). The tracks get a percent for their costs and profit, a percent is set aside for PURSES, for state breeding programs, and in most states a percent is set aside for operating costs of the authorized Horsemen's organization (whether that be the state's HBPA or other similar horsemen's organization.) There maybe a percent set aside for the Department of Agriculture or even for the state's general fund to pay for other things --some of them totally unrelated to horseracing. CA legislation sets aside a percent for charities but the legislation does NOT state that this amount is to go to the retiring horses and in the past these sums have been donated to any number of human charities and they do not PUT THE HORSE FIRST. Rescues receive less than other charities or even none in some years. To reopen this legislation in each state and get all of the above to agree to take a lesser percentage to fund racing's injured horses would be a monumental task!

As far as EUTHANASIA as an option: Someone who has personally viewed horses at the track with fractures, blown tendons or suspensories limping onto the kill buyer trucks, has attended the auctions where rescuers are ignored by the auctioneer over the kill buyer, has a barn full of horses who have had surgery but are still only sound for walk/trot and now must refuse horses and know they are going to slaughter because they are full, completely understands what John Hettinger stated so eloquently -- if nothing else is available, then chemical euthanasia is an option over turning horses away so these once prized investments can be slaughtered. If you do some number crunching adding the horses sent to slaughter per year (see Patricia Hogan, DVM's response to the AAEP white paper) and add to that the horses that are taken in by formal rescues and by individuals each year, understanding that these horses have another 20 years to live, then euthanasia must be considered or racing will be unable to support their discarded horses. There are simply too many of them each year. It’s a heartbreaking but grim reality.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

sceptre — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 02:50:03 GMT

Realize that most are no longer reading this specific blog. Still, Facing Reality's (and some others) post warrants some comment-

Granted, there are no easy solutions for the numbers of "unwanted" horses. I beg that we eliminate euthanasia as one of the viable alternatives. Many see this as practical/logical (perhaps even "clean"), and certainly preferable to suffering (even this is less than certain). If our message is that euthanasia can be acceptable, it will be seen by others as the path of least resistance-the easiest way out of this mess. It will tend to inhibit more creative solutions, and allow those (states, tracks, owners, etc.) to rationalize away any efforts they may have otherwise undertaken. We don't advocate euthanasia for the homeless, wretched, elderly, etc. and we shouldn't for the horse. The fact that we "permit" this for dogs, cats, etc. (another wrong) should not be of solace to us... This specific issue needs a thorough airing.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Facing Reality — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 00:27:44 GMT

When my horses compete in shows, I do not expect others to pay for their surgeries to repair their injuries, their ongoing injury-related veterinary care, their medications, plus basic care of immunizations, deworming, farrier and board or feed bills. The horses were owned by me, competed by me and are MY financial responsibility to care for them myself and if I cannot, then I should not have my horses in competition or shows. It is NOT okay for me to dump them with a kill buyer or take them to an auction OR expect someone in the racing industry to pay for my show horses. Why is the reverse true for racing?

How many breeders, stallion owners or racing owners do you know that truly take responsibility for their horses? This includes -- BEFORE donating the horse to a rescue -- paying for any surgeries required because THEIR horse suffered an injury while trying to make THEM money. They could even make these surgery cost donations to the rescue and have a tax donation. NO, that does not happen. The injured, if they are lucky, find their way to a rescue that bears the costs of caring for the horses, including surgery for repair of fractures, by begging for money from the non-race public and then the donors of the injured horses are all too happy to take a bow for their magnanimous donation of an injured horse! If racing breeders or owners are unable to personally retire the horses they bred or owned or pay rescues to do so for them, then they should take them back to their farms and peacefully euthanize them. (See John Hettinger's quote below). However, people in the racing industry prefer to shirk their responsibility and let a 40 billion dollar industry's disposable horses become the financial concern of someone else, who never brought them into this world nor ever raced them but for some reason, they think their slow or injured horses and unwanted broodmares and aged or infertile stallions are not THEIR responsibility.

For those who financially cannot care for a horse they have bred or raced, then they should not be racing or breeding. It's that simple. For those in racing that think this is just fine that people living in their trucks should be allowed to breed and/or race horses, then they should bear the burden of supporting those unfortunate horses or they should chase those "paupers" from the "sport of kings."

In addition to breeder, stallion owner, and horse owner responsibilities: Where are the donations from the racetracks that made money off of the wagers on these horses when they were in the industry or trying to race but suffered training injuries before they could even start? Sure, the tracks are crying that they are financially in trouble but I bet that general manager and staff still take their full salaries earned off the backs and broken legs of the horses that race at their track. The registration fees paid to the Jockey Club and all the income earned from equineline.com -- why is there no donation per registered horse from the Jockey Club? Where are donations from each and every veterinarian at the tracks and Thoroughbred farms who cared for them and profited from them? The farriers? The exercise riders? The jockeys? The states that receive tax dollars because they raced there and suffered injuries while earning money for those states? The pharmaceutical companies that profit from the sale of lasix, bute, steroids (both anabolic and catabolic) and other most commonly used drugs in the industry? In a 40 billion dollar industry, it is not hard to figure out where the funding for its OWN horses should come from and it certainly should not continue to remain the responsibility of the non-race public. The racing industry needs to face reality.

Those in racing that cannot afford to take care of their horses humanely or repair a horse’s injury before donating it to a rescue and continue to support the rescue that takes their horse in, need to leave the "sport of kings". To quote the late, great John Hettinger:

At the end of his life he should be retired, adopted, or humanely euthanized if no better solution can be found. Anything else makes a mockery of the words which for centuries have been used to describe our game ... Sport of Kings. -John Hettinger, Trustee, New York Racing Association

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

WFG — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:14:15 GMT

Interesting article, here are my comments.

I think the sport is in need of a "commissioner's office". This multi-purpose office does what it does in other sports, self regulates the industry. It enforces certain rules and standards agreed upon by race track owners. But can provide other functions as well. If you want to keep the feds and states off your back, self regulate.

First, I feel that horse owners with multi-state licenses should submit to the commissioner's office a "business plan" for horses under their care for the retirement of racing horses, humanely. The commissioner's office can have a representative at each track or group of tracks to insure compliance by single state owners. Managing partners of syndicates could be the responsible party avoiding small investors from that problem.

Trainers who use illegal medications should be penalized more severely. Temporary suspension of licenses does not deter trainers from illegaling medicating, especially the trainers with large barns in multiple states where the day to day training is done by an assistant trainer anyway. However, with more severe penalities to both the trainer of record and the assistant trainer, perhaps these people will think twice about what they are doing.

Let's say for example, that if caught using an illegal substance, the trainer and the location's assistant trainer lose their license for 6 mos, the second time, one year. Finally, the third time there is a lifetime ban.

As to promoting the sport, advertisers may be more willing to sponsor the sport if they were sponsoring more than one race. For example, Yum Brands sponsors the Kentucky Derby. How about if the funds sponsored several races at different tracks. Many tracks have smaller unsponsored stakes, use those. A multi track ownership organization could easily do this. Wouldn't the sponsor get a bigger bang for his buck on that basis and more funds flow into racing?

Finally, have all tracks have small entry fees for all races, let's say $100. per horse. Divide these funds, let's say 20% retained by the track, 20% for horse retirement facilities, 20% for equine medical research, 20% for testing facilities for illegal substance testing, 20% to fund the commissioner's office and national marketing.

My thoughts

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Saratoga — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:12:05 GMT

To the poster above who said that 95% of horsemen support the idea of humane slaughter, that's exactly the problem. The evidence that slaughter was terribly inhumane even when done in the US is unimpeachable. We're talking massive bodies of evidence, collected by the Federal Government about the transport and the slaughter house that, by comparison, makes Paragallo's farm look like it was run by Dr. Doolittle instead of Dr. Moreau.

Slaughter was never humane, and pretending that it can be doesn't make it so. Examine the Freeedom of Information evidence released by the USDA last November. Slaughter needs to be banned, period.

Listen, it's the notion that horses are disposable commodities without the intelligence to know they are being betrayed that is at the root of this. If the sport does not have the financial means - or will - to do right by the horses during and after their careers, that's a real problem. There are a lot of folks who truly love the horses they own and train and treat them well. This doesn't change the fact that - according to recent vet studies out of Canada - babies come off the farm with the precursors to the equine version of osteoporosis. It's an uncoupling of the healthy osteoblast-osteoclast bone regeneration process that is a precurser to bigger injury. Newer science is leading us to the realization that breakdowns may be more than just taking a bad step out of the blue.

Right now, many in the sport have a bunker mentality. They blame PETA for their own transgressions, and, like Nixon, the press for his downfall. While all this brouhaha is going on, there is an immediate need to come up with intelligent solutions within the industry so the humane community doesn't have to keep picking up the slack.

Factoring in the long term costs of producing any asset is sound business management. If there is too little demand for the end product of racing, off track TBs, the intelligent, non greedy response would be to reduce production. So stallions would go back to sensible books and have a longer life expectancy. Win-win.

For the Thoroughbred bred to run, one of the most glorious animals on the planet,

intelligent, practical, compassionate solutions are a matter of life and death.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

sceptre — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:04:42 GMT

Donna, Karen (etc.) your hearts are in the right place, but I doubt your methods for funding the displaced horses is very viable. What hasn't been expressed enough in this blog are the raw economics of this game. For openers, approx. $2B are expended yearly on costs associated with training, but only approx. $1B are returned in earnings. Those figures don't take into account the costs of purchase, or breeding and rearing, etc. The owners feel they are already behind the 8-ball, so most would be disinclined to lose even more. It is these negative economics which are in part contributory to the overall problem. Racing simply doesn't support itself. Yes, some very high profile stallions turn a nice profit, but most don't. I'll now contradict myself by suggesting that if a small % of the purse were deducted and, perhaps, a small % of the revenues from all stud fees, perhaps this might be "swallowed", thus helping relieve some of the overwhelming costs associated with homing all these horses.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Dona — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 01:26:19 GMT

Karen, We are on the same page and I'm glad you understand why I advocate a retirement fund for the horse from the proceeds they generate. Storm Cat alone could support his entire prodigy with his breeding fees, and look at the money they in turn earned. There's a book out about how Mr Prospector sired a billion dollar industry. Where's his offspring's share for their upkeep? Establishing a fund to care for these horses could create a whole new cottage industry, create jobs,and generate more interest about the sport because states would have a greater piece of the pie being distributed throughout. Imagine more places created to house them, additional medical personnel to aid in the rehab and post racing training, medical supplies and related products, tourism it could generate, ala the Kentucky horse park where Cigar is housed. The possibilities are endless but nothing will happen unless racing has their back to the wall during desperate hours or Congress mandates it.

Maybe the question should be more like "What is racing going to do in order to survive"? In other words, what are they going to do and when are they going to do it?.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Stephanie — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:15:16 GMT

First off the age should be raised to 5 (not 4), when the horse is completely done growing and plates are fused, this is realy when their peak is reached. second off breeding and over breeding needs to be adressed, La Ville Rouge, to name a well known horse, has now popped out 3 full bothers to Barbaro in as many years, and although the jacksons are amazing people and very good owners, most are not, how many horses end up at the meat man on a daily basis??? Third Off I think the government should stick their nose in it, give the trainers and owners a little scare, maybe to straighten up their act. At Suffolk Downs you have a trainer/owner who was convicted of animal abuse still allowed to race horses, you have got to be kidding me??? There will never be justice for all the horses thrown away on a daily basis but the owners/trainers in the spotlight have a duty to bring awareness to the plight of retired racehorses and to stop contributing to the over breeding that is out of controll...sigh.....

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Tiznowbaby — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:39:11 GMT

I want to add to my list of early retirements. Old Fashioned, according to Rick Porter, is done. So, now he can make little babies with that fashionable pedigree of his. Will they make it to the Derby or crap out early?

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

CRob87 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:27:13 GMT

MLJ:

Being an Ohioan myself I'll agree with you on most of your points about Beulah Park.

But, I do want to point out what I think is the 1 bright spot about Racing in Ohio. And that is the "Ohio Bred Program".

Not that there have ever been a lot of "Good" Ohio bred horses. Harlans Holiday was probably the most famous in recent years, but the program itself, I believe, is worth taking a look at.

This year there are 33 Ohio Bred Stake races and all with a "Minimum" purse of $50,000...Minimum that is !!!

And with a projected foal crop of 2009/2010 of being less than 200 foals..."To Me"...that's a market that someone with the means should be tapping into.

200 foals really isn't that much competition when compared to the 1000's that are born each year in other states with restricted programs.

I just thought that this was worth noting as a "Bright Spot" since most of us on here seem to despise the state of racing in general these days.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

sceptre — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:53:44 GMT

MLJ:

Your post was beautifully written and very informative. Hope all read it.

Thank you.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

sceptre — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:38:58 GMT

Re-the two-year-old racing issue:

Scot's comments are right on the mark...I've devoted much attention to this issue and can say that the intended inference (relative safety of 2 yr. old racing) drawn from Dr. Bramledge's remarks is not supported by the literature. There have been no studies that compare injury in those receiving consistent speed work/racing at two to those withheld (deliberately) from such until a later age (3,4,5). Dr. Bramledge has posited that speed work during the horse's accelerated growth phase contributes positively to long-term soundness in the racehorse. I have discussed this with other prominent equine veterinarians who deny knowledge of any such study. They contend that the jury is still out pending the necessary studies on this larger issue. There is, however, a consensus "given", i.e. the horse does not reach full maturity until approx. 5 yrs. age. Until more is known (if ever) common sense should dictate that we error on the side of maturity and, at least, abolish 2 yr. old racing. It is important that young horses-foals, yearlings, etc. receive constant exercise-repeated concussion-thus stimulating proper bone growth/density. Needless to say, Dr. Bramledge is a renowned, skilled surgeon, but his public persona appears rather dedicated to the protection of the sport.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

MLJ — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:45:56 GMT

The Ernie Paragallo stories are truly nauseating and disgusting, but, unfortunately, not unusual. I have been involved with horses for almost 50 years, and currently own 5, including 2 thoroughbreds. It is lots of fun to watch the Derby horses blaze across the finish line, but what goes on behind the scenes is truly criminal. I know for a fact that horses race with significant injuries, including slab fractures, at tracks throughout the country. When the horse can no longer put money in the owner's wallet, they are often "discarded", because they have "limited" value. It is then up to the true animal lovers to clean up the "mess" that has been created by the Ernie P's of the world. Eight Belles and George Washington were two of the lucky ones. Their death was quick and humane, much unlike the horses that are neglected, abused and not cared for over many months. Then you have the horses that are put on the slaughter trucks and shipped to Mexico and Canada. At a low level track where I have volunteered, the kill buyer is always there masking his activity as "thoroughbred trainer". He once told me with a smile that, if he depended on winning purses at Beulah, he would be "out of business" because there is no money in horse racing in the state of Ohio. His main occupation is horse trader and he buys horses for a few dollars and then they are often sent to Sugarcreek or to the killer who ships to Canada. I sincerely applaud the precipitous decline of the racing industry. I hope and pray that over the next few years the racing industry files financial bankruptcy because it is already emotionally bankrupt.

By the way, Ernie P should be heavily fined and do extended jail time. I am truly insulted that Ernie P would deny abusing the animals under his care and expect the rest of us to donate money to save these pathetic creatures. He is the one who is truly pathetic!

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

helsbelles — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:34:20 GMT

I don't share the opinion that synthetic tracks mask unsoundness. Success on synthetic surfaces requires stamina, whereas success on dirt requires only speed. And I thought we were in agreement that we need to promote stamina over speed to increase soundness in the thoroughbred.

Easy Goer, bless you for discussing the topic of breeding mares into the ground, that is an ugly secret that seems to never see the light of day. You can add Kentucky Derby winner Winning Colors to your list of broodmares who died from foaling complications (at the age of 23).

Lastly, one main reason why the BC 2008 went off without a single horse being hauled off the track, is that a team of state vets not only examined the horses the morning of the races, they examined the horses all week long. And, of course, The Pamplemousse was spared by a pre-race exam. That level of commitment to safety should be displayed at all tracks. Thank you Scot for this opportunity to express our honest opinions.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

fb0252 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:26:21 GMT

"groups set out to destroy the sport". (from the original post).

I'll agree that racing needs to "educate", which includes taking a stand against all the stupid agendas and have baked opinions that populate these boards.

my view is that the sky is not falling, that we have a sport made for the internet once we wake up to that, we have a gambling monopoly, better horses are being bred, therapeutic drugs need to be defended, most people on the back stretch are honest instead of crooks, human slaughter for unwanted horses is understood by 95% of horse owners, breeders and trainers, and racing needs to get a back bone, and as the original poster stated commence to "educate". And btw those abused animals at IAMS will thank PETA as their only advocate for the idiot that posted that PETA hates animals.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Tiznowbaby — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:17:29 GMT

For Big Red, I completely agree that, as you say, the commercial breeding would be the toughest nut to crack. I like to think that if you eliminated drugs, that would help the situation. We're masking too much unsoundness with drugs and synthetic tracks.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

LJ Broussard — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:12:28 GMT

Amen. I love racing, grew up in the business, am sickened by what's happened in the last 20 years. Something nobody talks much about in addition to the issues raised in this excellent article is WHAT ABOUT THE WAY YEARLINGS & 2YOs ARE NOW BEING RAISED AND PREPPED FOR THE SALES? They surely don't look nowadays like the yearlings I saw 30 years ago; now they look like show ponies crossed with fatted calves. Qu'est-ce qu'on va faire ???

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

For Big Red — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:29:35 GMT

TO TIZNOWBABY: Re your point #3, "Stop breeding for the sales ring and what I call breeding to get a breeder." Of all the items on the long list of the sport/industry's problems, commercial breeding is the toughest nut of all to crack.

Forgive me for stating the obvious here, but it may be useful to note that, legally, horses are livestock; property with which the owner can do as he or she pleases WITHIN THE LAW (emphasized due to the Paragallo case). Horse sales have been around probably since the species was first domesticated, so eliminating commercial breeding is not feasible. However, I believe breeding practices can be improved with the aid of 21st century tools such as genetics research, centralized databases, statistical studies, etc.

I think the main difference between most of the top breeders of yesteryear and today's commercial breeders is twofold: First, breeders of the past usually produced horses primarily to race for their own stables. Even though they might sell a percentage of their foal crop each year, the market then was for sturdy horses who could run fast over a distance of ground carrying weight.

For the most part, a commercial breeder's perspective isn't long term. Like any farmer or rancher, they're focused on selling the next crop -- and they are selling to a far different market than in the past. Today's Thoroughbreds are bred to win as early as possible, to run fast over short distances, and to carry the least amount of weight possible.

Fifty years ago come September 4th, the great Kelso made his racing debut. Bred and owned throughout his life by Mrs. Allaire DuPont's Bohemia Stable, Kelso raced eight years, winning 39 of 63 starts. He carried 130 pounds or more in 24 races. As they used to say back then, Kelso didn't need to "carry his track around with him." He raced on 14 different tracks, on dirt and turf. He won the Jockey Club Gold Cup five consecutive years when its distance was two miles.

Kelso was gelded early and raced three times as a two-year-old, winning only his maiden race. Not rushed into the Triple Crown, Kelso made his three-year-old debut mid-year in an allowance race, then finished out 1960 winning the Choice Stakes, Jerome Handicap, Discovery Handicap, Lawrence Realization Stakes (equalling Man o' War's record), Hawthorne Gold Cup and Jockey Club Gold Cup. He was named three-year-old champion and Horse of the Year, the first of his five HOTY titles.

After he was retired, Mrs. DuPont had Kelso retrained as her personal show jumper and saddle horse. He lived at her Woodstock Farm in Maryland for the remainder of his 26 years, and is buried there.

I think we can all agree that racing and breeding have changed dramatically in 50 years, for the most part, not for the better.

In my opinion, it would benefit the breed tremendously if owners and the general public would rediscover the thrill of watching great horses running two miles while carrying true handicap weights. But that will never happen unless buyers drive changes in the sales market and owners are willing to be patient with their young stock.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

LindaB — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:47:48 GMT

Great article and many more like it are needed. To answer your questions "But the issue that concerns me right now is whether racing can survive another high-profile on-track injury. Or another expose on ex-racers rescued from a slaughter auction. Or another trainer caught doping his runners." The answeres are No, No and No! My money used to go to support racing, now it goes to support rescues to save these beautiful animals from slaughter, abuse and drugs. Racing is a beautfiful sport and one everyone could enjoy but no longer can I encourage recommending racing as a family sport knowing that the very animal cheered on by children may end up at the slaughterhouse if he doesn't win or did not run fast enough. Please, let's work together and fix the ills and then we can celebrate this beautful sport together and to the horse we can say, we treated you well when you gave your all for us and we will treat you will and protect you when it is time for you to rest.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Ida Lee — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:00:35 GMT

Very good article. I do not know anything about horses except that they're beautiful and I love watching them run. But I have been so traumatized watching horse racing that sometimes I just don't know why I keep watching the races. My first trauma was Ruffian whose picture I still have hanging in my office. I gave it up for a long time then came back with Barbaro - I could have sworn we had a Triple Crown winner - I was so excited. We know what happened there. God I loved that horse and suffered with him for 8 months until his passing. Then Gorgeous George Washington. Then Eight Belles. And Shakis, Wandering Boy, Indyanne, Dear Lord how much can an animal lover take. You love these animals then you lose them in the blink of an eye. Right now, I'm so upset over The Pamplemouse and Old Fashioned - after all the attention and love I've given these beautiful creature, now I won't see them race again (I'm almost sure of this). So, now what? I fall in love with some other race horse that I'm going to lose to death or injury. Why put yourself out for this kind of pain? So yes there are alot of issue - drugs, abuse, etc. But I think this sport can attract more fans like me if we can sit back and enjoy seeing these beautiful animals do what they love doing - run - without having this nagging thought in the back of your head that disaster is about to happen.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Diane — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:40:57 GMT

Great article,

Horses need to be put first... what happend to horsmanship? they are not machines, that should get forced to run that hard... or shot up drugs to keep them going for the mighty $$ and if they break down, just get rid of them an go get a new one... and then when they are too old to race, or can't race anymore, they are put up for slaughter.. This industry really needs some tough laws , clamp down on over breeding and " find places for those horses that can't anymore... this industry needs to get cleaned up get rid of the greed !! Diane

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

tbpartnerperson43 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:12:22 GMT

Thank you TIZNOWBABY. That was just a wonderful, concise summary of solutions. All are doable. Hope everyone scrolls back and reads your post. As an aside, on a positive note, thanks to Bloodhorse for highlighting the excellent job Mark Miller did in training General Quarters. We need lots of good stories to offset the bad.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Porfi — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:51:46 GMT

I believe that not allowing any drugging would solve at lot of the problems. If these horses can't be raced they won't be bred in the first place.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

Karen in Indiana — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:36:22 GMT

Dona, it's not really that I support humane euthanasia. It's more that, given the way things are today, when an owner asks 'What do I do with animals I can't take care of and can't find a place for?', what options are there? That's why I loved your post. It gives a picture of the ideal and if people work for the ideal, even if that's not reached, at least whatever does come of it will be better than what's out there now. I go to Old Friends website and read the stories and how those horses are being taken care of and it's great that it's there, but there are not enough places like that for claimers or horses who have been injured and can't be retrained or even ridden. So they end up in kill pens or starving to death and the worst part is, they are intelligent enough to loose hope. That breaks my heart. I think we're on the same page, I'm just a little more cynical about people, especially when money is involved.

re: Can Horse Racing Solve Its Problems In Time to Survive?

JAJ — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:30:37 GMT

Scot,

Thank you for that article.

You questioned using generalizations, of comparing 2-year olds that raced against the general Thoroughbred population. I agree--that is like comparing apples to oranges.

However, the study you sent the link to compared horses who started as a 2-year old to horses who did in fact start but not as a 2-year old.

That is comparing apples to apples. It proves that a racehorse who starts at 2 has more starts, earns more money, wins more stakes races than a racehorse who doesn't start until 3 or more. Both groups in the study had raced, so it was NOT a comparison of 2-year old starters against the general population.

Scot's reply: To be fair, the Bramlage-cited data was comparing horses by when they STARTED, not by when they were TRAINED. At best, that's a Granny Smith-to-Red Delicious comparison, if not apples to oranges. I'll stick with my argument that it makes a huge difference (and skews the numbers to bias 2-year-old racing) when you look only at the age of first starts. Lots of those horses in the study that are listed as first starting at ages 3 or older actually went through the same training regimen as the 2-year-old starters. My contention is those that failed or broke down should be grouped with the 2-year-old trainees rather than with older trainees. Otherwise what you're saying is "the horses that succeed at 2 are more likely to have successful careers than horses that fail at 2." That does tell you many things, but it does NOT prove that "horses that are trained at 2 are more likely to have successful careers than horses that are trained at 3 or older." Don't get me wrong, I don't discount the possibility that 2-year-old training might be proven to be superior... I just won't buy into that idea until there are unbiased data to back it up. (And as I mentioned, that data does not exist now -- anywhere. I believe it is the responsibility of The Jockey Club to either start maintaining that data or to step aside to let another group do so.)