equine fatalities | Horse Racing Free Tips

Medina Spirit: The Public, Mainstream Media Reacts

The death of Medina Spirit (Protonico) following a workout Monday at Santa Anita has resulted in a predictable backlash, with at least two media outlets calling for the sport to be banned and readers of some of the nation's most prominent newspapers posting numerous vitriolic comments online.

Here is a sampling of what has been written and said about horse racing following Monday's shocking news:

The New York Post led the charge with Maureen Callahan writing a column with the headline “Medina Spirit's shocking death is yet another reason we should end horse racing.”

“Can you imagine any sport in which human athletes routinely died on the field, in competition, and we simply removed the bodies and kept going? Or one in which aged-out players weren't retired but sent to the slaughterhouse, as about 13,000 Thoroughbreds are annually?” Callahan writes.

She concludes: “The circus is dead. Dogfighting is almost completely eradicated. What will it take for us to save the racehorse?”

Writing for the website Deadspin, Sam Fels authored a story with the headline “Horse racing should be put out of its misery.”

The stories ran some 21 months after the Washington Post published an editorial in March, 2020 calling for the sport to be banned. “No other accepted sport exploits defenseless animals as gambling chips,” the editorial read. “No other accepted sport tolerates the cruelties that routinely result in the injury and death of these magnificent animals. The rot in horse racing goes deep. It is a sport that has outlived its time.”

The editorial appeared shortly after trainers Jason Servis, Jorge Navarro and 25 others were indicted for allegedly taking part in a scheme to dope horses with performance-enhancing drugs.

The coverage in the Washington Post, which has been highly critical of the sport, of Medina Spirit's death was straightforward, but the story evoked a strong response from readers. As of Tuesday afternoon, 616 comments on the story were posted online, and the overwhelming majority of them were unforgiving toward a sport that is clearly dealing with serious public perception problems.

“Horse racing is not a legitimate sport any more than cock fighting or dog fighting is. Just put an end to this,” wrote Avian_Donn.

“Horse racing is as evil as bullfighting,” reader Turqoises wrote.

There were a few favorable comments.

“These comments are ridiculous,” Velvet2 wrote. “Most likely he either had an aortic rupture (the wobbling before he collapsed points to this) or he had a faulty heart valve that stressed his heart, leading it to enlarge and beat irregularly, and then just stop (what seems to have happened to Swale). Neither of these possibilities have anything to do with man-made abuse.”

The story in the New York Times, another media outlet whose coverage of the sport has been overwhelmingly negative, elicited 170 comments.

“It's so sad what trainers and owners do to these beautiful horses to make money from them,” read a post from Ms. Pea. “It's no secret that long-term use of steroids can damage the heart. This whole 'sport' should be banned. It's despicable.”

Leo Moon wrote: “This young horse is dead because he was abused and drugged to make humans rich and satisfy their need for entertainment. It is despicable that this continues in this day and time. This was 100% preventable. We need to go after the Kentucky Derby the way the circus protesters have gone after Ringling Brothers.”

There were 132 comments attached to the Wall Street Journal's coverage of Medina Spirit's death. The Journal attracts a more conservative audience than the Washington Post and the New York Times, so it was no surprise that the comments were, generally less harsh. “I can't believe what I'm reading here,” reader Micheal Trian posted. “I can't believe how 'woke' we have become. I can't believe the Left, using their wacky liberals, has destroyed The Sport of Kings.”

But plenty of Journal readers took the sport to task.

“Inhumane sport… needs to be banned,” wrote srikanth iyer. “The enormous amount of money spent to sustain this ludicrous business can be better spent elsewhere.”

Les Utley wrote: “WHEN is this going to stop? How many horses have to die at Santa Anita and at other tracks before something is done? Drugging, overdosing and pushing these horses beyond their bodily limits is sickening and immoral–all for the amusement of the elites and the gamblers. Despicable.”

Many of the comments posted on Twitter were from horse racing insiders, but several touched upon the reaction of the general public.

“The @TODAYshow posted an article on Medina Spirit & within 30 minutes had 161 comments” wrote Leah Alessandroni. “I read them all. 160 are anti-racing. 1 was pro. That's just a tiny snapshot, the same responses are happening all over social media. TB industry needs to decide if it wants to live or die.”

“As expected, Medina Spirit's death made the national, nightly news,” read a tweet from WelbourneStud. “Who else out there is already fielding a bunch of texts/social media messages from non-horse racing friends asking what is going on with BB, Santa Anita, and horse racing?”

The post Medina Spirit: The Public, Mainstream Media Reacts appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Taskforce Not Penalties for Equine Fatalities, Said CTT at CHRB Meeting

If reception is any guide, the main takeaway by far from Tuesday's California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) Medication, Safety, and Welfare Committee meeting was the suggestion of an accident prevention taskforce to systematically study the myriad factors behind fatal equine injury.

The primary discussion on the meeting agenda was a highly anticipated one, concerning the possibility of penalizing trainers for injuries and fatalities for horses in their care.

During the meeting introduction, CHRB executive director, Scott Chaney, and CHRB chairman, Gregory Ferraro, explained that while California has witnessed a sharp decline in equine fatalities over the last two years, the discussion was to stimulate suggestions on maintaining that trend going forward.

Both made pointed reference to trainers with multiple fatalities in their care each year.

“If you look at the numbers over the last few years, by far the vast majority of trainers have no more than one breakdown in any given year,” Ferraro said.

“But there's a handful, just a handful of trainers who have multiple violations, multiple breakdowns, year after year after year. And those individuals are endangering the welfare and health of the industry,” said Ferraro.

There were 72 equine fatalities at CHRB-regulated facilities during the past fiscal year. “Of the 72 fatalities during the past fiscal years, all but 14 were one-off events for trainers. Of those 14 trainers, 12 had two [fatalities], one had three, and one had four,” Chaney explained.

“To be put in context, a musculoskeletal death is exceedingly rare at a CHRB regulated facility,” Chaney said, citing the following statistics: During the last fiscal year, there were 30 racing-related deaths from nearly 31,000 starts, and 22 training-related deaths from over 73,000 workouts.

“To be clear, writing a regulation that penalizes trainers for preventable or predictable catastrophic injuries has due process, logistical and fairness challenges, all of which may be difficult to overcome,” said Chaney.

After a preamble detailing the complex set of variables factoring into equine injury, California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) executive director, Alan Balch, outlined the organization's thinking behind a possible accident prevention taskforce comprising industry stakeholders and academics.

The taskforce, Balch explained, would systemize the extensive information already collected within the sport, as well as canvas professional input into some of the more subtle and intractable problems underpinning equine injury, like horses coming back from a lay-off.

“Some body could be formed that would look specifically at all of the data involved in repeated accidents,” said Balch.

“When accidents do occur, the basics pieces are already in place for a more formal fact-finding mechanism, since our tracks and regulator conduct reviews of the most serious accidents with those professionals and connections involved,” he said.

“What may be missing is a way to systemize these findings to evaluate them all together, and take definitive action where indicated, including not only the possibility of referrals or penalties for any licensees who might be found responsible, but more important, recommendations for improved conditions, safety, or regulation that may arise,” said Balch.

Balch then outlined a set of other related issues that the taskforce could formally address, including:

– Improving the “scope, accuracy and detail” of the national Equine Injury Database.

– Determining the true statistical safety of synthetic surfaces, versus dirt and turf, “and reconsidering whether to once again mandate synthetic surfaces for either training or racing.”

– Developing an “agreement on best practices” when it comes to horses returning to racing following a lay-off.

– Further investment into, and enhancement of, all continuing education programs, “for any professional, including management, trainer, official or veterinarian or jockey, who might demonstrate the need from the formal accident review process.”

– New rule making processes for weeding out potential or perceived conflicts of interest in the sport.

– Consideration that official regulatory veterinarians be only state veterinarians, “answerable only to the regulator, and properly compensated by a CHRB assessment.”

– A modernization process to streamline existing CHRB statutes and regulations.

– Establishing consistent and uniform “oversight and surveillance practices” at all regulated training and racing facilities.

– And consideration that all contemporary diagnostic and rehabilitative practices and equipment are made uniformly available across the state.

“Obviously I could go on and on, and the taskforce could develop a great many more of these ideas,” said Balch.

“Mobilizing all of California's constituent groups to assess these and other ideas could begin immediately, without any cumbersome rule making process, it seems to us,” Balch added.

“It can expedite the charge that the CHRB has put forward to improve safety and reduce accidents still more, and do so on an inclusive basis with all constituent members,” Balch said.

In response to the potential taskforce presentation, the CHRB Medication, Safety, and Welfare Committee appeared largely favorable to the idea, with members asking fairly perfunctory questions.

Ferraro asked, for example, if the taskforce would be populated with all relevant constituents.

In response, Balch bemoaned the siloed nature of current stakeholder organizations, and said the taskforce could be a way to knit together the industry's fractured ranks.

“This could be a way to get us back on track” considering the shared interest in “reducing injuries and accidents further,” said Balch.

Ferraro also asked if the taskforce would address the CHRB directly with recommendations.

“Absolutely,” said Balch. He added that while there might be legal issues concerning the working practicalities between the taskforce and the CHRB, “I think participation and observation by the CHRB is very important in something like this, because the regulator is neutral.”

The CHRB chief veterinary officer, Jeff Blea, called the taskforce a “very thoughtful, progressive suggestion,” and discussed some of the ways in which some existing academic research into injury prevention could be woven into the possible program.

“There are currently procedures in place that go on under the radar that people aren't aware of that I think could apply or be applicable to a body of work that you're talking about,” said Blea.

As an example, Blea pointed to the necropsy review process, conducted at UC Davis, through which studies are conducted on cause, effect and prevention, as well as the state's broader mortality review program.

“Hand in hand, that program could help you better define the taskforce,” said Blea.

Blea also discussed the work being done at UC Davis on a predictive model to look at proximal sesamoid bone fractures, the number one cause of musculoskeletal breakdown.

“As far as the taskforce, I think from my position I'd be happy to be a part of that,” said Blea. “And I could bring what the university has to offer to lend a scientific arm in addition to the practical aspect of that program.”

The post Taskforce Not Penalties for Equine Fatalities, Said CTT at CHRB Meeting appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Penalize Trainers for Equine Fatalities? The Ins and Outs

An indication of just how prickly an upcoming California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) Medication, Safety, and Welfare Committee meeting discussion will likely be–one on potentially penalizing trainers for equine injuries and fatalities–can be evinced through a tweet the agency's spokesperson, Mike Marten, issued on Sept. 26.

The digital missive goes: “Considerable interest in this Oct. 19 CHRB committee agenda item: 'Discussion regarding the advisability of penalizing trainers for injuries and fatalities for horses in their care.' Emphasis on the word 'discussion.' Very early in a complicated process.”

A “complicated process” indeed, for the multifactorial nature of any injury–catastrophic or otherwise–comes with connecting threads entangling more than just the trainer.

So why is the CHRB proposing such an idea–what would constitute the first such rule in the country? And what tangible changes could possibly come from opening what some constitute a pandora's box?

To unpick some of the knots woven into the topic, the TDN spoke last week with CHRB executive director, Scott Chaney, who stressed the infancy of the discussion.

“We've gotten rid of the low hanging fruit from a regulatory standpoint,” said Chaney, pointing to a 50% decline in equine fatalities over the last two fiscal years in California.

Nevertheless, there's still wiggle room for further improvement, he added. “This might not be the answer,” he said, of the idea to penalize trainers in this manner. “But other ancillary things could come of it.”

The CHRB already has on its book rules governing personal behavior and animal welfare. Rule 1902 is a broad one largely covering any conduct “which by its nature is detrimental to the best interests of horse racing.”

Rule 1902.5 more directly targets issues of animal welfare:

“No person under the jurisdiction of the Board shall alone, or in concert with another person, permit or cause an animal under his control or care to suffer any form of cruelty, mistreatment, neglect or abuse. Nor shall such person abandon; injure; maim; kill; administer a noxious or harmful substance to; or deprive an animal of necessary care, sustenance, shelter or veterinary care.”

According to the CHRB's steward's ruling database, there have been 44 separate violations of rule 1902.5 over the past 15 years. Just this August, the Del Mar board of stewards suspended trainer Dean Greenman for 30 days on animal welfare, neglect charges.

And so, why the need for further regulations?

“I don't think it directly applies to all kinds of situations when we talk of injuries or fatalities,” said Chaney, of rule 1902.5.

“It's well known that large bone injuries, catastrophic injuries, generally occur after layoffs,” he added. “Given that information and knowledge, should a trainer be held to a higher standard when a large bone injury like that occurs in that timeframe? I'm not sure animal welfare would really apply to that.”

In a hypothetical scenario that further reforms do come of these talks, therefore, what are the practical and ethical landmines that would need to be side-stepped? The first belongs to the notion of ultimate responsibility in relation to often subtle, hard to detect, musculoskeletal injuries.

“Nobody knows the horse better than the trainer,” said Chaney, echoing in the process a core argument of the absolute insurer rule.
Given the multifactorial nature of any injury, however, this leads invariably to other industry participants whose roles, like fault lines, intersect the tectonic plates of shared blame.

The technologies surrounding track maintenance, for example, have improved over the years–markedly so. But it's still far from an exact science. And so, if legitimate question marks surround racetrack surface safety and consistency, how liable should the track superintendent be?

The same question extends to attending veterinarians, those with arguably the greatest scientific insight into a horse's physical wellbeing.

More pointedly, given the fleet of safety programs enacted in California the past two years–from increased veterinary examinations to tightened vet's list restrictions–should questions of culpability be extended to the official veterinarians responsible for signing off on a horse's raceday participation?

“I don't think you want to be in the business of saying regulatory vets should be held responsible–I push back pretty hard on that one,” said Chaney.

“This would imply that if there was a morning soundness check and a horse dies in the afternoon, then it's the regulatory vet's responsibility,” he further explained. “A, I don't think it's an intelligent approach. And B, I just don't think you'd find any regulatory vets. There's no way you could entirely warranty a horse like that.”

This line of inquiry sure has a touch of the rabbit hole about it, for some subtle injuries can be as good as imperceptible to the trainer on the sidelines, yet detectable to the rider on the horse's back.

What onus should the rider bear who misses the problem–or more importantly, the one who fails to tell the trainer of an underlying issue?

This is no insignificant obstacle considering the industry faces a shrinking pool of experienced and qualified riding talent.

Here, Chaney emphasized the open-ended nature of these discussions–that, as the CHRB reaches the “end of its regulatory push” to reduce fatalities, a public discussion of this type might serve the singular purpose of putting “licensees on notice.”

“It's not the regulator's sole responsibility to make fatalities disappear in California–it's a shared responsibility,” he said.

From culpability, the path leads to matters of definition. In other words, what should be the set of parameters used to distinguish a guilty trainer from an innocent one? Is there a statistical tipping point that can steer a burden of proof?

This couldn't be a hotter topic right now, given recent instances of track operators unilaterally excluding licensed individuals from their premises on equine welfare grounds.

In banning in 2019 Jerry Hollendorfer from its facilities by claiming he failed to put horse and rider safety above all else, for example, The Stronach Group (TSG) effectively argued that the trainer posed a disproportionate danger to the horses in his care.

In its defense, Hollendorfer's legal team have argued that a broad look at the trainer's career, and given all relevant data points, he poses a statistically lower risk to his horses than many other California trainers.

It's instructive to note how some industry experts have sought a solution to the problem of quantifying trainer risk–like Jennifer Durenberger, with her Regulatory Veterinary Intervention (RVI) rate, a mathematical model that was trialed a few years ago.

But Chaney takes a different tack. He says that California's relatively low fatality rate means that in a hypothetical scenario of trainer penalties, statistical significance might be superfluous when it comes to trainers responsible for multiple fatalities.

“One fatality might happen to a trainer, and it would be unfair to hold hem responsible. But in this day and age, if you're having two or three, regardless of starts or number of horses in your barn, you've taken a wrong turn somewhere,” he said. “California racing will not exist if every trainer has two or three fatalities in their care each year. It's over.”

(As an interesting aside, such an eventuality raises the possibility a numerically powerful trainer deciding the risk to maintain a large stable was too great, and consequently shed a few horses to align it with other stables in the state–a potential salve to the relative dominance of the state's super trainers.)

In some of the feedback thus far to this latest CHRB proposal, there's a tangible fear that broaching issues of culpability could unpick a scab still healing in California, laying bare once again how dangers inherent to horse racing can be unpalatable to the general public.

“Is it a little uncomfortable? Absolutely,” Chaney admitted. “But we're already having those discussions in California, right? I guess it's fair to say the rest of the country isn't as far along the spectrum as we are–we're the point of the spear.”

If we are indeed at the tip of the metaphorical spear, then might this be an opportunity to identify and try to fix some of the other less obvious root causes of equine injury, like the quality of the training facilities? In this regard, few would argue that California couldn't step up considerably.

Dilapidated barns desperately need renovation, and equipment routinely employed elsewhere around the world–like swimming pools and treadmills and hyperbaric chambers–would be a welcome addition for trainers currently starved of options.

If California really sees itself an industry leader, are state of the art training facilities not part of that gold standard?

I've also written recently of the broken trainer business model in the U.S.–one that places the trainer from the very beginning on a financial back foot.

Few things can tempt a struggling trainer into corner-cutting faster than a bank balance in the red, and fast-mounting bills to the feed merchant and farrier and an assortment of other creditors.

If trainers in California are held to a higher standard in terms of horse safety, maybe it's time to properly take to task repeatedly delinquent owners? Given recent high-profile cases involving the Zayats and the Ramseys, this is hardly an isolated problem.

“I agree with that,” said Chaney. “And just to be clear, from a regulatory approach, we're not finished. I think it's fair to say we're over the initial major regulatory push, but there's still more work to be done. I could rattle off five more regulations that could go into effect.”

What are those five?

“I think I'd like to hear from the trainers first,” said Chaney, before adding that the list could include better standardization of racetracks (and making those measurements public), expanded video surveillance on all backstretches, and a look at basic training philosophies–maybe even the idea of opening up training to the opposite direction around the track (clockwise instead of counterclockwise).

The idea behind the committee meeting next week, said Chaney, “is for stakeholders to add to that list as well.”

The post Penalize Trainers for Equine Fatalities? The Ins and Outs appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Turf Paradise Race Dates Approved, But Doubts Remain Over Meet

In a special meeting Monday morning, the Arizona Racing Commission formally approved the proposed 2021-2022 race dates for Turf Paradise–Nov. 5 through May 7–but hard practical questions remain over what participation at that meet could look like due to an ongoing standoff between the Arizona horsemen and Turf Paradise management.

As a result of welfare concerns springing from a 2020-2021 Turf Paradise race meet marred by a high number of equine fatalities, the Arizona Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (AZHBPA) have stated they will not sign any race-meet contract until a list of track safety upgrades and other facility management-related requests have been satisfied.

Turf Paradise representatives argue that the Arizona HBPA's requests cannot be met in full, and that their efforts to get the facility up to code are sufficient to begin racing Nov. 5.

When asked whether the commission could step in to dictate track safety standards and protocols in the event the two parties fail to reach an agreement in time, commissioner Rory Goree demurred.

“We definitely want to stay out of the negotiation process,” Goree told TDN Monday after the meeting. “I don't want them living under fear that we might do something. I want to give them a chance to come together and do what they need to do.”

In a July 30 letter to Turf Paradise, the Arizona HBPA itemized 25 safety issues and broader management concerns, the primary one being track surface quality.

“Too many horses last year were euthanized or injured to the point they could no longer race,” the letter stated, before asking that Mick Peterson, director of the Racetrack Safety Program, be brought in to examine the surfaces.

During the whole of 2020 and thus far in 2021, 67 Thoroughbreds and Quarter Horses have suffered equine fatalities at Turf Paradise–18 during morning training, 31 during racing, and 18 due to other circumstances–according to results from a public record act request.

The other 24 demands in the letter include upgrades and repairs to the backstretch, grandstand and clubhouse, along with a different track veterinarian.

The HBPA takes issue with current Turf Paradise veterinarian, Dr. Verlin Jones. “HBPA will pay 50% as long as it is not Dr. Jones,” the letter states.

To help substantiate their requests, the Arizona HBPA have shared at the last monthly commission meeting Aug. 12 and on social media a variety of pictures of Turf Paradise in various states of disrepair.

In a further ratcheting up of tensions, subsequent to that last meeting–during which Turf Paradise owner, Jerry Simms, stated that the facility could operate a meet this fall “without a contract” with the horsemen–Turf Paradise management issued a proposed stall application, parts of which the Arizona HBPA have taken exception to.

The proposed agreement gives Turf Paradise “the right to end the meet at any time.”

This contradicts one of the HBPA's 25 requests–namely, that the meet be run in its entirety, “unless the commission rules it is not safe to run. We can use the same language as the last agreement.”

Another sticking point for the horsemen concerns new language in the proposed agreement which places the onus of safety and risk squarely onto the trainer's shoulders.

The agreement states: “Applicant agrees that neither Turf Paradise, nor its officers, directors, employees or agents shall be liable for any loss, damage, death or injury of any kind to Applicant or to Applicant's employees, agents, invitees, exercise riders, jockeys or any member of their respective families, property or animals, regardless of whether such injury, loss, death or damage is caused by a condition of the facilities at Turf Paradise and/or any negligent act or omission of Turf Paradise, its directors, officers, employees and agents from any other cause.

“Applicant hereto specifically and knowingly assumes all risks of such injury, loss, death or damage, fully and completely.”

Last week, Simms issued a letter responding to the HBPA's concerns about certain language in the stall application.

The reason Turf Paradise has demanded it retains the right to end the meet at any time is “because of the threat by the AZHBPA to end Turf's ability to simulcast races from other tracks Sept. 23. The line was added to protect the track from a very real threat that would have brought an end to racing,” Simms writes.

In that same letter, Simms also claims that the language concerning liability is taken verbatim from Canterbury Park's stall application.

“It's not a problem for Turf Paradise's trainers to agree to and sign a stall application with this language in Minnesota but it's somehow a violation of those same trainers' rights here in Arizona,” Simms writes.

According to Bob Hutton, AZHBPA president, he has asked to meet with the Arizona Department of Gaming's director, Ted Vogt, and Racing Division director, Rudy Casillas, prior to any sit-down negotiations with Turf Paradise.

“I want to make sure that if we have something in writing with Turf Paradise that they're going to regulate them,” Hutton said, of the department of gaming.

TDN reached out to the department for a response but did not hear back before deadline.

Those attempting to bring together both sides are staking out a position from the fence.

“Obviously it is a facility that needs to have some money put into it,” said Goree, of Turf Paradise. “We can't keep coming back every year making a big to-do–it needs to come up with a long-term plan for our survival.”

At the same time, Goree takes issue with a one-sided levelling of blame, using his experience in greyhound racing as a point of comparison.

“The kennels always blame the track, and the track blame the kennels. There's blame between both of them,” said Goree. “The kennels sometimes would be running dogs they shouldn't have been running. They were running dogs that should have been in adoption.”

And using the fate of greyhound industry in places like Florida–the state last year voted to successfully ban the sport–Goree warned that the very public and acrimonious nature of these negotiations weigh heavily on an industry already under intense public scrutiny for its equine safety record.

“People who want to end racing see this and they will use it,” he said. “Public perception is going to kill us.”

The post Turf Paradise Race Dates Approved, But Doubts Remain Over Meet appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post