Dan Ross | Horse Racing Free Tips

Super Trainers in California: The Story in Numbers

Over the years, the rise of the so-called super trainer has prompted many a clutched pearl by virtue of a perceived monopoly on the sport.

Anecdotally, it can certainly appear as though the same few names wield an outsized impact. But what does the data say?

The TDN has crunched the numbers in California from 2007 onward. This is far from a comprehensive overview of the situation, and what emerges is a picture that can be viewed from multiple angles.

On the one hand, the numbers suggest that the biggest stables in the state have indeed consolidated their positions at the top during a long period of market contraction. Yet at the same time, other indicators afford tentative encouragement for the smaller players.

One statistic that should make industry leaders sit up and take notice, however, is how in just 14 years, the number of trainers making at least one start in California has nearly halved. As a market shrinks, the impact from any dominant force is going to be more keenly felt.

Super trainers

One common narrative in California is that the 80/20 rule–the notion that 80% of prize money funnels into the pockets of 20% of the trainers–has long been a defining feature of the industry.

How accurate is this?

The 80/20 rule has fluctuated a little over the last 14 years, with the top 20% of trainers in the state typically winning more then 80% of available purses. Indeed, back in 2007, they won more than 85% of all available prize money.

Between 2007 and 2018, the closest California came to the 80/20 benchmark was 2015, when the top 20% trainers won 80.7% of all prize money. But the last two years have seen a very slight shift in that trend.

In 2019, the top 20% of trainers won 80.8% of prize money. Last year, it fell to 79.2%–the first time it dipped below 80% in at least 14 years.

There doesn't appear any one clear explanation. These past two years in California have been far from typical, with 2019's welfare issues followed by a global pandemic. It's unclear, however, exactly why those events should begin to iron out prize money distribution disparities.

Another factor to take into consideration is purse distribution between stakes and overnight races. Then there's the shrinking opportunities out West–has that led to the bigger barns stabling more horses elsewhere?

Arguably more consequential was the expulsion in June of 2019 of trainer Jerry Hollendorfer from The Stronach Group's California facilities (Santa Anita and Golden Gate Fields).

Prior to that, Hollendorfer had been the dominant numerical force in California racing for many years. In 2018, for example, his runners made up 3.6% of all starts in the state. As recently as 2015, they had made up 4.1% of all starts in the state.

Nevertheless, without a clear understanding of where Hollendorfer's horses went, it's difficult to accurately diagnose. And as we shall see farther down, when the data is restricted to stables with 100+ horses making a start per year, their dominance appears as strong as ever.

Trainer data

Between 2007 and 2020, California has witnessed a 46.4% decrease in the number of individual trainers making at least one start: from 573 in 2007 to 307 in 2020.

At the same time, the number of trainers making up the 20% highest earners has decreased by nearly 47%–from 115 in 2007 to 61 last year–putting it in line with the overall drop in trainers.

The top 20% of trainers have consistently had an outsized impact when it comes to the apportioning of horses.

For the past 14 years, these top 20% trainers have started between 58.6% and nearly 65% of horses that have made at least one start in the state.

There are other indicators illustrating how, while the industry has shrunk, the big players have consolidated their position at the top.

One hundred-plus horses

Back in 2007, the number of trainers with 100 or more horses making at least one start per year was 14–the highest over the last 14 years.

Since then, however, the number of trainers with 100 or more horses making at least one start has fluctuated between eight and 12.

This means that while the number of active trainers in California has almost halved, the number of trainers with 100+ horses making starts has stayed fairly constant.

Not surprisingly, these large stables have long wielded tremendous sway in terms of prize money won and number of starts made.

In 2007, the 14 stables with 100 or more horses making at least one start annexed roughly 27% of all prize money and 21.6% of all starts. These 14 stables represent 2.4% of all trainers with at least one start in the state.

In 2020, the eight stables with 100 or more horses making at least one start (Isidro, Glatt, Sadler, Wong, O'Neill, Baltas, Miller and Baffert) represented 2.6% of all trainers with at least one start in the state. All in all, they annexed nearly 31% of all prize money and roughly 18% of all starts.

Lower end

There are, however, some angles to the data which appear to show glimmers of encouragement for the smaller stables barely scratching out a living.

As the number of active trainers in California has shrunk, the average earnings per trainer have trended upward.

Comparing 2007 to 2020, the average earnings per trainer for the bottom 80% had increased nearly 53% (from roughly $52,000 in 2007 to roughly $80,000 last year).

In comparison, the average earnings per trainer for the top 20% had increased only 0.6% during that same period (from roughly $1.212 million in 2007 to roughly $1.220 million last year).

Comparing 2007 figures to last year's, the bottom 80% of trainers have also significantly outpaced their top 20% cousins in terms of growth in both earnings per horse and earnings per starter.

Nevertheless, when the data is adjusted for the relative purchasing power of the dollar, the picture looks less rosy. When overall earnings per trainer are adjusted for inflation, for example, we see a more than 13% decrease from 2007 to last year.

To reinforce just how important the smaller stables are to the racing ecosystem, over 70% of trainers start fewer than 20 individual horses a year, but last year their horses accounted for about one-quarter of the entire horse inventory (1,392 of 5,389) and about one-quarter of all starts (4,321 of 17,973).

If the health of a racing product is defined in good part by fielding races with a varied breadth of competitor, therefore, this certainly leaves much food for thought, especially when the broken business model widely used throughout the industry disproportionately impacts the smaller trainer struggling to stay afloat.

And if the smaller stables find themselves unable to survive in an increasingly lopsided marketplace, what kind of product can the bettor expect?

Note: The data is derived from Daily Racing Form chart text files.

The post Super Trainers in California: The Story in Numbers appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Political Climate in California

At the start of last month, a small cadre of animal rights protestors snuck onto the Golden Gate Fields racetrack, lay down with arms interlocked in pipes, and halted live racing–as well as a vaccination drive on facility grounds–until police intervention saw their removal.

While the incident had a flash-in-the-pan quality, it had the corollary effect of reminding those within the sport here in the Golden State of the somewhat precarious position in which it still finds itself–an important part of the economic puzzle, employing tens of thousands, but one that doesn't always fit squarely with the state's broader progressive bona fides on animal welfare.

And so, placed in the context of the last two years, during which time the sport has been buffeted by sweeping reforms and hitherto unbeknownst scrutiny, it begs the question: Where does the state's industry now find itself in terms of political favor and cultural currency?

The answer appears both promising and cautionary, with the California state senate's vote against the reappointment of Wendy Mitchell to the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) Monday providing yet another indicator of a delicate balancing act.

“Two years ago, at this date, we were sitting at meetings with The Stronach Group [TSG], reviewing various plans whether to close Santa Anita for the rest of the meet,” said Greg Avioli, president and CEO of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), pointing to the welfare crisis that had engulfed Santa Anita.

Since then, the sports political roller coaster has been helter-skelter, taking in a joint hearing in Sacramento, a letter of condemnation from senator Dianne Feinstein, major pieces of legislation, a regulatory board dramatically reshaped by Governor Gavin Newsom–who told The New York Times in 2019, “I'll tell you, talk about a sport whose time is up unless they reform. That's horse racing”–as well as a proposed ballot initiative to end racing in the state (one that was ultimately extinguished before voters had a chance to weigh in).

Two years later, sweeping equine welfare and safety reforms have proven markedly effective. “We've come a long way,” Avioli said.

Del Mar | Horsephotos

As to the temperature in Sacramento toward horse racing, “We have conversations with legislators and representatives weekly. In this last week, the conversations have focused on the recent safety results, particularly at Del Mar,” Avioli added, referring to recent news out of the Southern California track that it is among the safest in the nation for the third year straight year.

As a result, “I do not expect that you're going to see additional bills on the same subject,” said Avioli about prospective legislation in Sacramento. “The core issues of horse safety and welfare right now seem to be adequately addressed by the legislature.”

That sentiment appears mirrored by Senator Bill Dodd, whose legislative fingerprint can be seen on a number of horse racing-related bills over the past two years.

A spokesperson for the state senator, who represents the northern San Francisco Bay Area and Delta region, wrote in an email: “As chairman of the committee overseeing horse racing, Sen. Dodd follows developments in the sport closely and continues to monitor his previous measures to improve rider and equine safety. He has not introduced any new legislation in this area so far this year.”

Josh Rubinstein, Del Mar Thoroughbred Club president, strikes a similar tone to Avioli.

Industry progress made at the local, state and national level–including recent passage of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA)–means there is now a “different tone in our conversations with governmental leadership” compared to two years ago, Rubinstein wrote, in an emailed response to questions.

“We have real tangible progress we can point to, which makes a difference,” he added.

Protesters on the track at Golden Gate | Direct Action Everywhere

“I think there's some positives in all of this”

And so, what to make of events up at Golden Gate, by an organization called Direct Action Everywhere, which purportedly seeks to shut the facility down?

Anti-racing protests in California aren't new or novel–picketers have routinely descended upon both Del Mar and Santa Anita in recent years, often prompting workers at both facilities to stage counter-protests.

Indeed, Scott Chaney, CHRB executive director, downplays the significance of what occurred last month.

“I don't think a few protestors at Golden Gate are representative of the larger population in California,” Chaney said, highlighting both overarching public sentiment toward the sport, and the fractured nature of animal welfare organizations in the state with disparate sets of goals and agendas. “I think lumping animal rights activists in one group is unfair.”

At the same time, Chaney acknowledged the long thread of political activism woven throughout the history of the City of Berkeley–whose district Golden Gate Fields partially overlaps–as something the industry needs to be cognizant of.

Political pressure was brought to bear on the CHRB last October, when Berkeley City officials wrote the board requesting an investigation into equine fatalities at Golden Gate.

(The track routinely boasts a better equine fatality rate than the national average, which was 1.53 per 1,000 starts in 2019, according to The Jockey Club. In 2020, it was 1.23, 0.64 in 2019, and 1.12 in 2018.)

The CHRB responded with a letter explaining these rates, while listing a series of increased medication and safety measures the board had recently undertaken statewide and intended modifications for the future, including those specifically geared toward Golden Gate.

How was the letter received? “I'm not certain,” said Chaney.

“But to be fair, this is all against the backdrop of a global pandemic,” he added, saying that the track had built a good rapport with the City's Public Health Division as a result of a large facility outbreak last year, illustrated by the vaccination drive conducted on Golden Gate property. “I think there's some positives in all of this.”

In a written response to questions, Craig Fravel, CEO of 1/ST RACING, wrote, “At 1/ST, we believe in the right to free speech and peaceful protest, but the types of actions exhibited by the activists that disrupted live racing at Golden Gate Fields last month run directly counter to a safe and healthy environment and endangered the lives of thousands of people as well as the horses they were claiming to protect.

“Animal rights and extreme activists are very different,” Fravel added. “Those in our industry who stand for ethical horse racing believe in the protection of these beautiful creatures and are working together to ensure that racehorses are cared for before, during and after their racing careers.”

A surface safety evaluation at Santa Anita | Horsephotos

“It's a very substantial undertaking”

Which brings us to the path forward, and political land mines still to be negotiated. Come the next election cycle, could racing face another potential challenge at the state ballot?

“You always have to be cognizant in California–just look at Governor Newsom and the recall effort–of the ballot initiative as a challenge for horse racing,” Avioli said.

However, “You generally need upwards of $100 million to support a ballot initiative successfully. It's a very substantial undertaking,” he said, adding, “There is no indication of serious talk of a ballot initiative right now to address horse racing.”

One important distinction, said Avioli, is that a history of state initiatives related to animal welfare show support “to some level” by the Humane Society.

“We have good relations with them,” he said, of the global non-profit. “It all goes back to the fact that we did two years of the most aggressive reforms that have ever been done in this country in horse racing and it appears to be working.”

But that brings us to perhaps the biggest sticking point moving forward, one that highlights the various levers and conflicts tugging at the sport both within and without: the issue of continuing reform.

Horsephotos

According to Avioli, after two years of snowballing regulatory change, the industry is at a point of consolidation, allowing the dust to first settle on a radically altered landscape before further modification.

“The CHRB seems right now to be not in an activist role,” he said. “They understand the massive amount of new regulations that have been put in place over the last 24 months, and they do not expect it to continue at the same rate.

“Now's the time to focus more on implementing those–see the results of the new rules–before we go on and add additional ones,” Avioli said.

Yet, Kathy Guillermo, vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)–an organization, alongside the Humane Society, afforded key industry input–is critical of the rate of change since the CHRB has undergone its recent personnel reshuffle.

“For all the criticisms of the previous board, at the end, we were working very closely with them to try to make those changes,” Guillermo said, pointing to efforts that included tightened rules pertaining to multiple violators, as well as the implementation of central pharmacies on racetrack grounds, mirroring jurisdictions like Hong Kong.

And while the reforms instituted have seen the industry turn a corner, “a lot more still needs to be done,” Guillermo said.

“There has always been a division in racing about what needs to be done to correct the public perception. I see about half the people really get it,” Guillermo added. “And I see other entrenched parts of racing that still refuse to believe that they're going to have to be accountable to anybody but themselves. And they need to get on the same page.”

Here, it should be noted that the new board has been split on a number of controversial topics in recent months, including the issue of whether to grant Los Alamitos–the latest California facility under scrutiny for its welfare record–a truncated six-month license. After an extended period, the board granted the facility its typical 12-month license.

More recently, the panel was divided over the issue of whether to implement even tighter whip reforms than currently exist, with the board eventually voting 4-3 to table the motion for the time being.

Guillermo released the following statement regarding commissioner Mitchell's failed re-election to the CHRB:

“I've never had a conversation with Wendy Mitchell, nor has PETA ever contacted her directly, but it has become clear to us in the last several months that the California Horse Racing Board has failed to bring about the promised changes to protect horses.”

Guillermo added: “The board and, apparently, the California legislature remain beholden to the old guard in racing that considers abuse and death to be normal business practices, rather than listening to the public that has demanded change. PETA won't sit by quietly while the body count mounts. Legislators can expect to hear from our 700,000 supporters in the state.”

Del Mar | Horsephotos

It's unsurprising, then, many are circumspect about this ongoing balancing act.

“While we may not always agree, as stakeholders we share a collective vision to ensure a healthy and sustainable future for horse racing in North America,” wrote Fravel.

“There is a vast ecosystem that makes up the Thoroughbred racing industry and in order to move forward, the entire industry needs to continue to prioritize equine health and safety and to demonstrate that priority at every turn,” he added.

“It's complicated,” admitted Rubinstein, distinguishing between inclinations from the fringe elements of the animal rights movement and the more orthodox viewpoints of the mainstream.

“So, our messaging is aimed at the more reasonable people who want to see the sport continue and thrive, who appreciate that it is an economic engine for so many people, that it protects family farms and working open space.”

The majority of people support horse racing, he added. “As an industry, we have to take the initiative in Washington and at a state level to affirm recent progress and our overall commitment to safety and welfare.”

The post Political Climate in California appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

2020 California Handle, Purses in Numbers

After a pandemic-stricken year in which ADW revenues hammered California industry coffers, the first month of 2021 brought with it a flurry of budgetary and purse account developments in response.

First came the announcement from the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) that they had reached an agreement with TVG, the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, The Stronach Group's 1/ST Racing, and NYRA to inject some $15 million into the purse fund over the course of two years.

In response, a subsidiary of the gaming corporation Churchill Downs, Inc. (CDI) filed a federal lawsuit against TOC, asking a judge to rule that TOC is precluded from using a state law to force CDI into either accepting lower rates, abandoning its just-signed agreement with Santa Anita Park, or else entering into arbitration to settle the dispute.

Litigation aside, what are the numbers underpinning some of these decisions?

At the beginning of the year, TDN asked TOC to put together a handle and purse comparison of the years 2018, 2019, and 2020–a more complete picture to the numbers the organization supplied in October of last year.

In summary, the data tells this broad story: A 30.3% decrease in races last year (compared to 2018) constituted a 15.7% decrease in all-source handle, and a 22.3% decrease in overall purses.

The numbers also tell another tale, one with potential implications for the Golden State's racing product.

That's because the lone major wagering growth area concerned California residents betting on non-California races, while out-of-state wagering on California races also took a sizeable hit. How much of that trend, however, was due to a COVID-shredded racing calendar last year in California?

To see the numbers in full, click here.

Main data points:

Handle

To get a representative comparison of what impacts the unprecedented swing toward ADW wagering had last year, we've primarily compared 2020 numbers to those of 2018 (2019, of course, being the year that Santa Anita was embroiled in its welfare crisis).

With a 30.3% decrease in races last year, as compared to 2018, there was a 15.7% decrease in all-source handle, and a 22.3% decrease in overall purses.

Out-of-state wagering on California races decreased by 18.6%, from $1.34 billion to $1.09 billion.

Handle from all-source wagering within California decreased by 12.9% percent, from $1.43 billion to $1.25 billion.

When it comes to betting revenues from within California, the most noticeable growth area concerned wagering on out-of-state races.

Looking at wagering within California on California races, handle from wagering at brick-and-mortar facilities dropped 36.5%, while handle from ADW platforms rose 5.2%.

Looking at wagering within California on non-California races, handle from wagering at brick-and-mortar facilities dropped 24.1%, but handle from ADW platforms rose 36.7%.

Purses

When it comes to wagering in California on California races, purses generated through brick-and-mortar wagering decreased 78.5%, while purses generated through ADW platforms increased 31.6%.

What's more, total purse generation in this area decreased 47%, from $50.6 million in 2018 to $26.5 million last year.

When it comes to wagering in California on non-California races, purses generated through brick-and-mortar wagering decreased 85.4%, while purses generated through ADW platforms increased 96.4%.

What's more, total purse generation in this area increased 10%, from $29.3 million in 2018 to $32.8 million last year.

When it comes to out-of-state wagering on California races, purses generated through commingled exports decreased 22.2%.

Per-race figures

All-source, per-race handle increased significantly from $785,692 in 2018 to $951,306 last year. The per-race purse yield, however, increased only very slightly from $35,531 in 2018 to $39,657 last year.

But again, zeroing in on which races are most attractive to California bettors, the baseline numbers raise questions.

Combining wagering from both within and outside of California on California races, the per-race handle grew 4% from $576,366 in 2018 to $599,669 last year.

Compare this to nationwide figures (using numbers from Equibase), however, and per-race handle grew 28% from $307,875 in 2018 to $394,412 last year.

Back to California, when it comes to the purse retention rate, as compared to 2018, the overall percentage of money taken from handle for purses dropped from 4.52% to 4.17%–what constituted a nearly 8% drop.

Analysis

TDN asked Thoroughbred Idea Foundation (TIF) executive director Patrick Cummings to weigh on the numbers and provide some critical analysis on what these numbers mean in terms of industry sustainability.

P.C: “Greg Avioli's point in your recent interview was spot-on–without detail on the composition of handle and customers, horsemen are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to understanding how the betting business is being managed. In California, that is of even greater concern given that wagering is the only source of prize money.

“A track could say, 'look, handle was flat,' or 'handle was up slightly, we did well' and everyone feels good about that. But if the high-volume rebate shop players increased their handle, a function of sweeteners to rebates and the like, and mainstream customers saw their effective takeout rise and reduced overall participation, there is little reason to be positive with a total handle figure either staying flat or being up slightly. Horsemen need more insight to the quality of handle, not just raw quantity.

“There are some signs, nationwide, that high-volume play, that which comes from customers betting nearly $100 million a year or more, sharply increased in the second half of 2020. We are awaiting some additional data to flesh that out more, but if this trend holds, and mind you it has been shifting in this direction strongly over the last 15 years, it is a terribly bearish indicator for the sport, and specifically for horsemen and purses. And that doesn't even factor the tremendous competition racing faces from legalized sports betting.

“When the biggest customers in our pools are given added financial incentives to increase play, on top of the significant technological advantages they already receive, being able to dump massive bets in at the last second and know exactly what odds they are getting, the mainstream customer will only take the hits for so long before abandoning racing altogether. Our estimates, published in July, showed that the high-volume rebate shop players have increased their handle by an inflation-adjusted 115% over the last 15 years while all other customers, anyone betting less than tens of millions annually, have seen their handle drop by more than 60%, adjusted for inflation.

“And don't forget, the biggest racetrack owners also own most of the ADWs, the majority of tote companies and even some of the high-volume betting shops.

“The deck is stacked highly in favor of the status quo.”

The post 2020 California Handle, Purses in Numbers appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Four-Year Jockey Injury Study Helps Plug Data Gaps

When Kelly Ryan, primary care sports medicine physician for Medstar Health and co-medical director for the Maryland Horsemen’s Health Program, discusses with her peers in the sports medicine world her work attending to injured jockeys, she’s often met with the sort of wide-eyed puzzlement usually reserved for rare finds.

“Every single bad case that we have is almost one in a million–like no other sports medicine doctor has ever seen this type of injury before,” Ryan said. “They’re all very unique and every single one of them could be a case study because of the level of trauma that they endure.”

This probably doesn’t qualify as revelatory for those within the sport accustomed to the sort of bone-crushing acts of stunt riding seen weekly on the track.

But what the industry should be chafing against is the hitherto dearth of hard data that might help explain how and why these accidents happen, especially when compared to efforts within many other sports–those far less dangerous than racing–to understand the cause and effect of injury to athlete.

Which is why Ryan hopes that a four-year study she helmed into jockey injuries in Maryland–one published last month–will help to plug that gap.

“The important thing about injury data is if we can find patterns, then we can hopefully try to prevent further injuries, make some modifications,” Ryan said.

Between September of 2015 and May of last year, Ryan and her colleagues logged all injuries–falls and otherwise–that 670 participating riders sustained when riding at Laurel Park, Pimlico and Timonium.

The study encompassed 590 race days, 5,611 races and 45,284 mounts. There were 204 injuries involving 184 separate incidents and 131 separate falls.

An “incident” is defined as this: “An event that occurred involving the jockey that required enough of a concern or risk of resultant injury that the rider needed an evaluation and injury report to be completed by the racetrack physician.”

In a nutshell, the study can be boiled down to a number of key details. In all, 76.3% of falls and 79.3% of incidents resulted in an injury of some degree.

Jockeys fell on average 2.9 times per 1,000 mounts and suffered on average 4.5 injuries per 1,000 mounts.

When it comes to injury type, the vast majority–nearly 80%–were soft tissue related. Hematomas, contusions and bruises were the most common, followed by strains and sprains, then fractures, abrasions and finally lacerations.

Over a quarter of incidents resulting in injury required further medical care in a hospital or another medical facility. In 2.5% of injuries, the jockeys required surgery.

Looking at the study findings, what are Ryan’s main recommendations to improve the overall quality of care given to stricken riders? She has three of them, including how each racetrack needs to have a set of clear concussion protocols in place.

Out of the 22 head injuries that jockeys suffered during the four-year study, eight were concussions, which works out to 0.18 concussions per 1,000 mounts. Six of the concussions came from a fall and two from horse headbutts.

Another of Ryan’s recommendations is for racetracks to “implement” sports medicine professionals into their operations, as is the case in Maryland.

“A lot of the other racetracks in the U.S., some of them don’t even have any medical providers, let alone a sports medicine-trained physician,” she said, pointing out how tracks are now typically awash with veterinarians, “but there’s really not much for the people.”

And finally, “make sure to improve emergency action protocols and make sure jockeys get the level of care that they need immediately,” Ryan said. Not only that, ensure that these protocols “are prepared, practiced and streamlined in the case of an actual emergency,” she added.

How likely is an emergency? Twenty jockeys were taken immediately to a hospital by ambulance during the four-year study, while 21 injured riders were transferred to another facility for evaluation at an orthopaedic clinic, urgent care centre or imaging centre.

Of the nine surgeries performed on injured riders, two were cases of internal bleeding from a lacerated spleen (one that had complications missed on initial evaluation). Other surgical cases included a fractured fibula, along with two shoulder and two hand injuries.

The unusual catalogue of injuries that jockeys often suffer makes it imperative they receive specialized attention from an expert who understands the long-term stresses that injury will be put under–something that happens too infrequently, Ryan explained.

“You want a hand specialist for their hand–you don’t want a general orthopaedic surgeon. If you tear your ACL, you want not just a regular general orthopaedic, you want them to go to see someone who does 300 ACLs a year,” she said. “[Jockeys are] professional athletes–their career depends on it.”

One fascinating feature of the study is how it breaks down injury occurrence to location on the track, with slightly more than 14% of injuries unfolding on the homestretch, 8.2% happening immediately post-finish and 6.8% near the finish line.

The most dangerous area by far, however, is the starting gate. Roughly 41% of all injuries occurred either entering or leaving the gate, or else in the contraption itself.

As such, this is another opportunity for the industry to take stock and examine the whys and wherefores of injury occurrence around the starting gate. “Can we improve the process by better training the horses, the assistant starters and the jockeys?” she said, pointing out that questions need to be asked of whether the gates themselves are contributing to the problem, and whether starting stalls used in other countries could benefit U.S. shores.

Which brings the conversation neatly back to the issues of piecemeal jockey injury data collection, and a glaring opportunity for the industry to implement safety changes built on hard fact rather than supposition.

“If we had this kind of data from other racetracks, then we’d be able to compare it,” said Ryan. “What are you doing that works? Why are your numbers better? How come this track has lower numbers–does it have to do with the gate? Does it have to do with the training?”

The post Four-Year Jockey Injury Study Helps Plug Data Gaps appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post