racing safety | Horse Racing Free Tips

Letter To The Editor: Actions Detrimental Or An Inconvenient Truth?

by Brent J Malmstrom

“Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people.”-Thomas Jefferson

I was made aware The Jockey Club published an article “HISA is Necessary” which appears to be a direct response to my letter to the Editor Actions Detrimental.

I would like to thank all the various industry participants who have reached out in support of what I shared and the concerns which were raised.

The Jockey Club is a breed registry. The author perhaps without knowing has acted as an agent for the Authority and or the person most knowledgeable and your commentary can only be interpreted as an on-the-record factual basis.

A more appropriate response could have been, `we appreciate you raising your concerns, we appreciate your perspective as an owner, and we acknowledge despite best intentions things haven't always worked the way they are intended.' This could have been used as a learning moment for the betterment of the collective. Or, they could have said, `we disagree with your point of view.' The question remains: how many industry representatives need to come forward before constructive dialogue is allowed to occur?

According to the author, I should be ashamed for raising concerns regarding the implementation of this Act and the potential material consequences the integration represents to the industry and the participants. A little reminder that we live by the rule of law and protections where the government can't deprive any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process.”

Contrary to the representation raised by the author, I am not a party to or affiliated with any lawsuits pertaining to this integration and adoption. Also, as a point of fact, it wasn't my horse in question, as the author suggests. I just happen to own around 30 other racehorses. Also, to date there has been no email or communications from HISA or HIWU regarding what happens when one of your covered persons (i.e. your trainer) has been provisionally suspended.

The author suggests that it is not possible to have any contamination event and the presumptive position would be anyone taking any of these types of medications under the general care of their doctor should not be training and or be involved in this sport as the tolerance level is zero. (Trainers, owners, grooms, track employees, racing officials, anyone…)

We should recap the significant events since my article was published. The Authority changed the Provisional Suspension rule to not to take effect until the “B” sample results were complete. I believe they should have taken it one step further and waited until the provisional hearing; that would seem appropriate. Allow the labs to confirm the results and allow due process to the parties involved.

With regards to my statements about the permissibility of the medication in question, “Metformin”. I drew those statements from publicly available information: USADA;, WADA;, FEI (indeed, FEI even acknowledges some substances “are more likely to have been ingested by Horses for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance, for example, through a contaminated food substance); ARCI (see links below).

Why is all of this important? There is a subset of medication that is common within our environment and the list of Atypical Findings as well as the “Banned vs Controlled/Prohibited” lists should continue to be reviewed. At issue is the difference in how these determinations were made and how they are treated (a monetary fine, points on your record, a suspension). Gone are the days of a fine and a few days suspension – we are now saying you could be out of the industry for months and or years for a violation from a positive caused by an environmental transfer. Why when these concerns are raised, must the attitude be, “you are anti-HISA” vs “it's in everyone's best interest to get this correct?”

What hasn't been discussed is what happens when the Authority doesn't follow their stated protocols i.e. Timelines for test samples, chain of custody of the samples (split samples not traveling together to the second lab), confirming the testing procedures are followed. Just because they say this happens doesn't necessary reflect what happens, unless the author is suggesting they will attest and stand behind this certification under penalty of perjury that everything is correct all the time. Remember the industry participants are paying four to five times more for these tests as it has been stated the costs were negotiated to ensure speed and accuracy.

There continues to be a significant lag when test results are returned vs. when horses competed. We continue to see issues related to results vs. claimed horses. In several examples the horse may have changed hands several times before an original test of an altered chemical finding was produced. The pervasive question continues to be now what?

The request from HISA and now The Jockey Club is to allow time for the failures to be corrected. The issues raised by my article were about the material impacts an altered chemical result could have on someone (any trainer). The suspension, the loss of income, the brand reputation risk of being labeled a cheater before any due process. Your asset being stranded and or impaired without any remedy and the inevitable issue of defending yourself with the IRS Section 185 the “Hobby Loss rule” just to name a few. Unattended consequences are particularly concerning as most if not all of this could have been predicted had the execution phase of this been well thought -out.

The Jockey Club statement asks us to give the Authority time because “this is a start-up,” as though we should just write a check and let the Authority learn the business and just trust them, they will get it correct. The inconvenient truth is a vast majority of this industry can't afford the pervasive “let me swing until I get it right” mentality.

The response simply ignored another concern raised the need for disclosures. Disclosures are the mechanism in place to ensure concerns raised are answered. To reiterate HISA representatives, continue to make representations about transparency and ethical conduct. I am struggling with this, given they make little to no disclosures around their overall operations. They are operating with an unchallenged budget with no certifications or disclosures. Perhaps this Start-up should understand the shareholder value proposition be accountable and be transparent to the collective.

If the talking point is correct there was collaborative engagement with all the various industry representatives, then why the roll-out challenges and the need for time to get this correct? Contrary to what The Jockey Club writer stated, it is the big-picture considerations which prompted my article. As I shared before, unless there can be balanced enforcement that affords equal protections to all parties we will continue to lack the necessary progress to move the industry forward.

The post Letter To The Editor: Actions Detrimental Or An Inconvenient Truth? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Armen Antonian

The “Quick Fix” of Synthetics is Not the Answer

Horse racing has been down the path of synthetics before at Santa Anita, Del Mar, Keeneland, etc. Much time was lost, approximately a decade ago, with a focus on changing surfaces as a panacea for horse racing breakdowns. We now know there are other causes for horse breakdowns that are more prevailing. The greatest single cause of racing deaths has to do with pre-existing conditions of the horse, and only in particular instances is the surface itself the primary reason for horses breaking down while racing. Synthetics have found a role to play in the Industry but racing on synthetics exclusively means to change the sport itself in a fundamental way: from breeding, to handicapping, to the aesthetic beauty of competition–the reasons we are all fans of horse racing. And, changing to synthetics will not appease the critics if that is the motivation to do so.

But statistics show that horse racing deaths are less on synthetics than either dirt or turf. Surely safety must be the main focus with racing today. Yes, safety must be a central focus but there has to be some perspective. Horses also die in nature. The thoroughbred industry cannot be expected to prevent ALL deaths of horses and a comparison must be made as to how often and how horses die in nature to reach a fair, concise view of horse racing. Such a comparison, of course, is extremely conjectural. There are no thoroughbreds in nature and not many other horse breeds in nature today at all. Experts from many areas would have to weigh in on such a comparison.

In other words, the approach to the issue of horse racing deaths in general, that is, how the question is posed, is false. So too is the case for synthetics falsely stated. Are we to believe that horses somehow have more trouble competing on dirt and turf than fabricated material? Biology and evolution would initially say otherwise. Similarly, are we to suppose that the breeding of thoroughbred horses is inherently producing unsound animals? Again, general evolutionary changes of such a magnitude would take time. To make such an argument, geneticists would have to be consulted to ascertain that thoroughbred breeding practices are actually producing inherently unsound horses. But first things first. Looking mainly into the track surface and or scrutinizing breeding operations are not the places to begin when investigating horse racing breakdowns.

Back to the statistics. Statistics don't lie. More horses break down on dirt or turf than synthetics per Jockey Club figures. But statistics don't always give answers either. Indeed, the overall sample size in the Jockey Club figures in the aggregate is large but the fact that the number of dirt races were about 7 times more than synthetic races is a cause for pause in a comparison. Sample sizes are usually uniform in the scientific method. And when looking at individual tracks per year, the sample size is quite small when considering dirt races only. A track can thus vary markedly from year to year in horse fatalities as the Jockey Club statistics indicate.

And the sample has to be RANDOM. Horses that are selected to compete on synthetics are not randomly chosen. That is, the two populations: horses that run on dirt and horses that run on synthetic are not uniform. So the synthetic numbers for horse fatalities that are generally lower than for dirt fatalities may or may not be because of the surface. The fact that both are samples of thoroughbreds is not rigorous enough to make a valid comparison. The sample population has to be random. A random sample also compensates for genetic variation in a species. The best argument for synthetics in terms of the data comes from Gulfstream Park in 2022. At Gulfstream, there were about 7000 starts on synthetic with one fatality whereas there were about 6000 starts with 8 fatalities on dirt. At least the number of starts were comparable at the same track for each surface but again, horses were selected by trainers for various reasons to race on synthetic rather than dirt. Better comparison of the two surfaces–but still not a random sample of the horse population at Gulfstream and one year is not nearly enough to draw any serious conclusions.

Action at Gulfstream Park in Hallandale Beach, Florida | Bill Denver/EQUI-PHOTO

Any glance at aggregate statistics for analysis would have to consider figures after 2019 after the implementation of new safety protocol stemming from the racing deaths at Santa Anita that year. But even here, with a seemingly logical approach to the data on racing breakdowns, a comparison is problematic. There are inexplicably low dirt rates of fatalities (say below 1 per 1000) before 2019 with dirt racing at various tracks that, in other years, had higher rates of about 2 per 1000. Such variability calls into question any definitive conclusion about track by track breakdowns relating to surface only.

What we do know is that Del Mar, Santa Anita and Keeneland have had remarkably low rates of fatality on dirt the last 2-3 years. For example, Keeneland had 3 deaths from 2020 to 2022 in almost 5000 starts or about 0.6 per 1000. Del Mar had none from 2021 to 2022 with almost 4000 starts. Such figures compare favorably with the lowest synthetic figures. Given these Keeneland and Del Mar figures it is a stretch to say that dirt racing is inherently or significantly more dangerous than synthetic racing. The question does remain: are these rates extendable over time? If the safety reforms in horse racing continue and are enhanced, the chances are they can be.

What we can say with some assurance is that all horse racing death rates are going down from year to year. The average rate of horse death for 2022, in an industry where safety reforms have not been sufficiently generalized, was 1.25 deaths per thousand. Still, it is too early to draw conclusions about horse racing deaths (especially in the wake of the recent spate of breakdowns at Churchill) until the new protocol is agreed to and generalized throughout the industry and a number of years with such protocol in place has passed. The hard work of putting in the safety measures is just beginning.

Horses run slower on synthetics than dirt. Is running fast then a problem? There are many misconceptions here. The issue is not speed but how often a horse is asked to race at high speed. Here the veterinarians can chime in to assist trainers with their training and racing schedules. A dialogue should ensue on best practices. A horse can race more often if it is running easily. A horse in a grade I race cannot race as often as winning at that level usually requires maximum effort. So comparisons by racing fans of one horse's schedule to another are not valid. Each horse is different both in terms of circumstance and genetic variation and trainers must be more in tune with their vets moving forward not just on a horse's ailments and therapeutic medication but on their racing schedule itself.

–Armen Antonian Ph.D

The post Letter to the Editor: Armen Antonian appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The Week In Review: Earle Mack Has The Answer, And We Must Listen To Him

Earle Mack is right. This industry, which is mired in a crisis, can no longer afford to ignore the most obvious solution to its problems, which are synthetic tracks.

Mack wrote just that in an Op/Ed that appeared in this publication last week. If you haven't read it yet, please do so now. It is powerful, articulate and well-reasoned and was written by someone whose credentials demand that we respect his opinion. He is a horse owner, a breeder, a former U.S. Ambassador to Finland and a smart and successful businessman who clearly loves this sport and does not want it to be pushed to the edge of extinction. It may be the most important story you will read all year.

“The responsibility lies with horse racing's governing bodies, influential race track directors, and all key stakeholders to rally behind a transition to synthetic tracks,” he wrote. “Their public endorsement and commitment to safer racing conditions would signal the beginning of the transformative change our industry desperately needs.”

The 12 deaths at Churchill Downs have created a dangerous firestorm unlike anything racing has ever encountered. We only thought the problems at Santa Anita in 2019 were bad. That was an ugly story but it was largely a California story that didn't resonate with the national media. This time, we are talking about the most famous track in the country, the GI Kentucky Derby and two deaths on the Derby undercard.

This is a story that has been widely covered by every major media outlet in the country and has led to a public debate: is our sport inhumane?

How do we answer that? The public no longer wants to hear about how loved these horses are by their owners, trainers, and grooms or that they are pampered and get the very best care possible and that they were born to run. What they want is for the deaths to greatly decrease if not stop all together.

To their credit, Churchill Downs, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) and the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission have stepped up and announced that changes are being made. Theirs is a genuine and concerted effort to do the right thing and to get to the bottom of what has been going on at Churchill. Moving the remainder of the Churchill meet to Ellis Park was a drastic step. Considering the widespread opinion that there is nothing wrong with the Churchill track surface, you can argue that it was overkill, but shutting Churchill down was a victory in the public relations battle, and that matters. The days when the sport shrugged this off and we were told “it's part of the game” are, thankfully, over.

But it's not enough. This sport must do absolutely everything it can to alleviate the problem. And it's not. And it won't until synthetic tracks replace dirt tracks throughout the sport.

Yes, deaths happen on synthetic surfaces, too. But they are much safer than dirt tracks. According to the Jockey Club's Equine Injury Database, there were 1.44 deaths per 1,000 starters in dirt races in the U.S. in 2022. On synthetic tracks, the number was 0.41. That means a horse is 3 1/2 times more likely to die in a dirt race that in a synthetic surface race. Dirt tracks are the most dangerous tracks we have and yet they remain the sport's core product.

Noting those figures, Mack wrote, “…the stark and troubling statistics demand a shift in thinking. We must abandon old norms and embrace new practices that prioritize the safety and welfare of our noble equine athletes. The benefits of synthetic tracks are not mere conjecture; they are a proven truth.”

Yet synthetic surface races remain a minor part of racing and Keeneland, Santa Anita and Del Mar gave up on them too quickly, going back to dirt after a short period of time when they were in place at all three tracks.

Mack calls on Churchill Downs to lead the way. Not only does this story center around deaths at that track but the company owns the sport's most important asset, the Kentucky Derby. Mack reasons that if Churchill takes the lead and converts to a synthetic surface, that will create the much-needed domino effect. How about we go a few steps further? The three Triple Crown tracks should make a joint announcement that going forward the Derby, the GI Preakness S. and the GI Belmont S. will be contested on synthetic tracks starting next year. The Breeders' Cup should announce that starting with the 2025 Breeders' Cup only racetracks that have synthetic tracks will be considered as host sites.

It is understood that this would cause a huge change in the economics of the breeding industry, which is a powerful and influential component. There are stallions out there that are worth tens of millions of dollars and that is because they produce top quality dirt horses–ones capable of winning races like the Derby and the GI Breeders' Cup Classic. Should that strength be taken away by ending dirt racing, their value could be greatly compromised. That will never be an easy thing for the top stud farms to accept. But they can adjust. It will take time, but a new set of stallions capable of producing horses that win at the highest levels on synthetic tracks and, for that matter, turf courses, will take over.

And the farms, like every other section of the sport, need to look at what the alternative is.

“If we fail to take decisive action, the Triple Crown and horse racing itself may soon be mourned as relics of the past.,” Mack wrote. “Animal rights groups, emboldened by each equine death, are gaining traction in their campaign against horse racing. The calls to ban or severely restrict the sport grow louder with each life lost. We cannot afford to lose this race for the soul and survival of our sport.”

Is the sport sure to continue? For maybe the first time in its proud history, we really don't know the answer. Where will racing be in, say, 25 years? Will it have gone the way of dog racing? It won't if we do the right things now, before it is too late. The sport must become safer and that must happen now. The best way to do that is to end dirt racing.

The post The Week In Review: Earle Mack Has The Answer, And We Must Listen To Him appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Move-In Date At Laurel Pushed Back To Aug. 10 As Work On Track Surface Wraps Up

While Maryland horsemen had originally hoped to move back into Laurel Park by Aug. 6, officials with The Stronach Group announced this week that they will again have to push back the timeframe based on the progress of a major track resurfacing project. The new target for the resumption of training at Laurel is Aug. 10.

Steve Koch, senior vice president of racing operations for the company, said there is still some final grading work to be done on some portions of the main racing surface, and new cushion material will need to be mixed in throughout. Work on the drainage and base on both the backstretch and frontside of the track is complete, with the work on the front designed so it will match the backstretch.

“The whole oval is a totally new racetrack, as the cushion will be,” said Koch. “We don't put horses on the track until it's safe and ready to go.”

The cushion material was sourced from a Maryland quarry based on its ability to make a specific mix of material that would be consistent with other tracks in the Mid-Atlantic region and be similar to previously successful mixes in Maryland. The company, Stancills, was also chosen for its ability to continue to provide quality-tested material on an ongoing basis without supply chain interruptions.

“One of the challenges we have, not just at Laurel but at a lot of the tracks, is the continuing supply of a consistent enough material so that the track, when it's supplemented or repaired, does not drift over time or change,” said Dr. Mick Peterson, racing surfaces expert consulting on Laurel Park.

After four days of mixing the cushion surface in thoroughly, officials said training can resume Aug. 10 and anticipate timed works will be permitted then if trainers desire.

[Story Continues Below]

The track has also hired Logan Freeman as Maryland Turf Consultant to prepare a review of the irrigation and nutrient management of the turf course. The turf has been aerated regularly since spring, with a break in July to alleviate heat stress, and Koch anticipated that aeration will resume soon and continue indefinitely.

The last day for training at the Maryland State Fairgrounds, where much of the Laurel Park population is stabled temporarily, will be Aug. 7. Staff housing in Timonium-area hotels will close Aug. 12. Horsemen will be able to ship into Laurel beginning Aug. 8.

The post Move-In Date At Laurel Pushed Back To Aug. 10 As Work On Track Surface Wraps Up appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post