“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

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

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

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.

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

For racetrack practitioner and surgeon Dr. Ryan Carpenter though, the sea changes that started with mainstream media attention on Santa Anita haven't finished – and they probably won't anytime soon. Carpenter has been outspoken ever since about the ways he has seen the public focus improve racing for the better in California. At a recent virtual edition of the Tex Cauthen Seminar on racing safety, Carpenter continued to provide his thoughts on the interaction between the racing world and the world at large.

Carpenter was the first to admit he was skeptical of the initial changes the state and track ownership rolled out in response to the crisis —  chiefly, backing up therapeutic drug administrations – but after seeing them in action, he believes they are making a real difference. The new requirement to have horses examined after workouts and races has been key in letting veterinarians get a look at horses in vulnerable moments when they're most likely to show signs of a brewing discomfort due to bone remodeling.

But although trade media acknowledged when Santa Anita's spike not only passed, but fatality rates decreased significantly, Carpenter pointed out the mainstream media did not view it the same way. He highlighted a recent Los Angeles Times editorial that concluded: “If track owners and trainers want to keep racing horses, then they need to keep them from dying in the process.”

“The reality is that every horse that sustains a fatal injury in Southern California is going to make the news, in one form or another,” he said. “It's talked about commonly on news outlets like NPR and it's going to be in the LA Times or the national news.”

Carpenter presented the results of a study undertaken by the Thoroughbred Safety Coalition to better understand the impact of the Santa Anita breakdowns on public opinion. Survey takers were asked about what they thought the future of racing should be before and after they read about the Santa Anita fatalities. They were asked to choose whether they believed racing should continue, continue with reform, or be banned outright. As other surveys have shown, a small group of survey takers wanted racing banned – 16% of respondents before they'd read about Santa Anita and 19% after reading about it. The most interesting change for Carpenter was that 57% said prior to learning about Santa Anita that racing should continue on with reforms, but the number jumped to 66% after they read about the breakdowns.

Most people (82%) said the industry's biggest priority should be better protection of the safety and well-being of horses. Another 46% wanted to see increased transparency and accountability for rulebreakers.

The survey also asked people to indicate whether they had a favorable or an unfavorable opinion of various sports, including professional football, basketball, soccer, and racing. The Triple Crown was viewed favorably by 46% of respondents, unfavorably by 24%, and 30% had never heard of the series or didn't know enough to form an opinion. The American horse racing industry generally was 37% favorable, 35% unfavorable, 27% undecided – roughly equal to boxing and not too far off from the rankings for the greyhound racing industry. Professional football, by contrast, had left a favorable impression with 60% of followers and an unfavorable one with just 28%.

Carpenter thought the latter statistic was interesting, given the heat professional football took for its treatment of concussions a few years ago. It would seem it has rebounded some of its public trust in the intervening years thanks to reform and good marketing.

One of the most disturbing findings for Carpenter was a question asking people who they trusted to help enforce safety rules in racing. Large animal veterinarians like himself ranked highest, getting trust from 70% of the audience. Animal rights groups including the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) ranked second, with 49% of respondents saying they trusted the group to help enforce safety rules in racing.

“We can't let PETA – who doesn't want to reform the way we do things, they want to eliminate the way we do things – be the trusted voice for people to go to,” he said.

Carpenter cited a bill sponsored by a California assemblyman who took input from the industry and from PETA when drafting the legislation.

“Unfortunately, he followed some of PETA's recommendations. This bill was passed and is currently the law of the land in California. Some of the things we're doing differently is because PETA was able to speak on our behalf. In all honesty, we can't let this happen. We as veterinarians have to be the ones to speak on our behalf, and on the behalf of the horse.”

What about the familiar refrain from many hardboots that we simply have to tell the outside world what a good job racing does at protecting its equine athletes?

“People often say to me, 'You know Ryan, we just have to educate them about what we're doing. Once they understand what we're doing, they'll understand why we're doing it,'” he said. “I think it's important to acknowledge the fact that by and large, that train has left the station. While I don't think education is bad, if you look at this graph and you look at the stat analysis, people aren't asking us to teach them what we're doing. They're asking us to do it differently by putting the horse's safety first. I think you can do that when you cultivate a cultural change in your industry and in your backstretch.”

The post Carpenter: The Public Wants Change, Not Explanations, When It Comes To Racing Injuries appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

The main dirt track has not had a racing fatality in 2020, including the 2019-20 Winter/Spring meet which began in December.

In 2020 there have been five racing fatalities from 5,069 starts, or 0.98 fatalities per 1,000 starters, well below the national average.

In addition to hosting some of the most prestigious races in the nation, Santa Anita is home to the largest training facilities in the country, operating nearly year-round with over 400,000 annual training sessions.

“These results are the efforts of the racing community to put the safety of the horse first at every turn, including additional veterinary regulations and observations, training approvals and analysis of entries,” said Aidan Butler, Chief Operating Officer of 1/ST Racing. “Last year, we set a course to reform the sport of horse racing for the next generation. This year, we are seeing the results of the hard work everyone has put into this effort.

“We especially appreciate the dedication of the owners, trainers, veterinarians and hardworking men and women who care for the horses, of the jockeys who have adapted their riding styles, the California Horse Racing Board which regulates the sport, and veteran trackman Dennis Moore and the entire Santa Anita track crew, who tirelessly work the surface day and night with safety top of mind.

We acknowledged last year that this modernization would likely lead to a short-term impact on Santa Anita's field size, but as these reforms become the national standards, California is ahead of the implementation curve which strengthens the sport in our state. We sincerely thank the bettors who have continued to support our racing product during this transition.

“On behalf of everyone at Santa Anita, we'd also like to let our fans know how much we've missed their passionate voices cheering these horses at The Great Race Place and we look forward to welcoming everyone back just as soon as we are able to do so.”

Live racing will return to the Arcadia oval at Santa Anita Park as tradition dictates on Dec. 26.

The post Santa Anita Wraps Autumn Meet With Zero Racing Or Training Fatalities appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

At a commission of the New York State Gaming Commission held Oct. 19, officials invited several groups representing the interests of racing officials, jockeys, racetrack management, and The Jockey Club to present their views on whip regulation for informational purposes. Commissioners did not call the meeting with the intent of taking any action, but rather allowing a question and answer forum for commission members to better understand the issue before proceeding with any rule changes or choosing not to pursue changes.

Currently, state statutes in New York do not place a limit on the total number of strikes a jockey may make during a race, but stewards do impose a restriction that a horse may be hit no more than five times in a row before being given a chance to respond. Racing officials also say they can and do pull riders in for disciplinary action if they feel the whip has been misused, irrespective of the number of consecutive hits made. Riders are required to sign an acknowledgement of the waiver, which is available in both English and Spanish, before the start of each meet.

Erinn Higgins, state steward at Finger Lakes, said so far this year the track has seen four total violations related to the whip – two riders with one violation each and one rider with two. Braulio Baeza, state steward at NYRA racetracks, estimates there are no more than ten whip violations on that circuit annually, though both agree there were more when the five hit restriction was first put into place.

The stewards agreed that New York was somewhat ahead of its time in imposing some restrictions on whip use ahead of other jurisdictions. From the perspective of Carmine Donofrio, state steward emeritus for NYRA tracks, there's no reason to fix the current system if it's working. Donofrio made clear his viewpoint that further restrictions on the whip would be challenging for racing officials to enforce. Although there were no suggestions from the commission that its members were considering banning the whip except for safety or correction (as has been implemented in New Jersey), Donofrio warned that would be problematic.

“Are the stewards supposed to adjudicate that?” he asked. “What if the jockey says the horse was about to prop and I had to hit him. Are you going to call him a liar?”

Current riders and stewards agreed the number of times a rider uses a whip for safety or correction, as opposed to encouragement, is probably low, around five times or so per year. Still, when it is necessary to keep a horse's attention or correct their path of travel, riders agreed it's an option they want to have.

Hall of Fame rider Mike Smith appeared at the meeting via teleconference, as did John Velazquez and Javier Castellano. In addition to their concerns about the necessity of the whip for safety, the jockeys raised questions about the integrity of a wagering contest in which horses could not be encouraged by their riders, which might handicap some more than others. Smith recalled his come-from-behind Kentucky Derby win aboard Giacomo in 2005, an effort in which he's sure he used the whip more than the six-strike limit that now may be imposed in Kentucky.

“He was a horse you really had to ride, but he would respond,” said Smith. “As long as you encouraged him, he would go. He was like a bike — as soon as you'd stop pedaling, he'd stop running. There's no way in heck I'dve ever won the Kentucky Derby on that horse if you'd put a limit on it or if you'd made me use it in an improper way.”

Smith has been vocal in his opposition to California's new requirement that riders can only use the whip if it's turned downward in an underhanded motion, which he says jeopardizes riders' balance, is ineffective, and can easily result in the horse's sensitive flank taking the hit because the jockey can't aim well.

Similarly, Smith said Zenyatta was a horse who tended to coast after passing several horses, and often required him to use the whip to create her thrilling, narrow-margin victories.

Representatives from The Jockey Club say their research has shown riding crop use is one of the primary concerns of the public — both of non-racing fans and racing fans. A 2011 McKinsey and Company analysis showed that along with race day medication and aftercare, it was one of the top three drivers that contributed to a negative public perception of the sport. Jim Gagliano, president and chief operating officer of The Jockey Club, said he anticipates the public tolerance for whip use is going to decrease, not increase, as time goes on.

“To me and The Jockey Club, we see a future where hitting an animal with a stick isn't going to be acceptable anymore,” Gagliano said.

Gagliano believes that while current horseplayers may not be happy with potential changes to whip rules, there are potential customers on the sidelines who may be, and they are the target audience for changes like this.

Representatives of the Thoroughbred Safety Coalition, including NYRA Senior Vice President of Racing Operations Martin Panza, expressed a desire for whatever rulemaking made in the future to be uniform across the country. Of course, whip rules in California and Kentucky, two key jurisdictions in the Coalition, are already different, meaning either action or inaction in New York would still result in different rules between racing's three biggest states. Craig Fravel, chief executive officer of racing operations for The Stronach Group, downplayed the potential impact of any rule changes to horseplayers. After all, he pointed out, the number of hits a horse receives in a race isn't currently printed in past performance records, so it doesn't seem all that important to bettors.

Panza pushed a bit harder for reform, warning the commission that if something doesn't change soon, he worries racing in the state will face more public scrutiny. Ever since last year's headlines about breakdown rates at Santa Anita Park, Panza said NYRA social media managers have encountered more feedback and concern from users questioning the use of the whip on horses — and he doesn't want to see it become a topic for mainstream news.

“I think when you run a Triple Crown and you can hit a horse six times in the Kentucky Derby and six times in the Preakness, and you come to New York and you can hit them 30 times, I'm pretty sure NBC is going to bring that up,” said Panza. “Right now, New York has no restrictions on the number of times you can hit a horse.”

“Martin, they should be following us,” said Velazquez of the other jurisdictions. “We shouldn't be following them.”

The post Whip Rule Debate Reaches New York As Commissioners Question Whether Change Is Needed appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

The job is arguably the most dangerous in horse racing, after that of the jockey. According to a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2000, 35% of all injuries to jockeys took place as horses enter, stand in, or leave the starting gate.

“It's as dangerous as any job on the racetrack,” said Scott Jordan, who became the starter for Churchill Downs in 2006 after years as an assistant starter. “You're trapped in there with a 1,200-pound horse in a four and a half-foot hole. It's just like being in a two-horse trailer, up by the horse's head.”

Jordan and his crew liken the job of assistant starter to the captain of a ship — they are the last to bail out when trouble explodes, and we've all seen that happen. Anxious horses can rear or flip, and often set off a chain reaction from others around them.

“You get the rider off [the horse] first, and then second you get the horse out of there. The third thing is you get those riders beside him out of there,” Jordan said. “All the riders are first. That's our first main objective, so no human gets hurt. Then we get all the horses out of there so no horses get hurt. Then my assistant starters are the last ones to leave.”

“I'm looking at, is the horse comfortable, is the horse standing properly, is he ready. … So when the gates do open, those first two steps are going to go without an issue,” he said. “…So I want to make sure all four feet are standing squarely, that he's looking straight down the racetrack. And then while you're doing that, you also need to make sure that that jock has his feet in the irons, that he has hold of his reins, his goggles are down, and he knows that we're getting ready to go.”

All this is done while the assistant starter balances on a pontoon, a ledge attached to the partition between stalls, about six inches wide on most starting gates in North America. Assistant starters in Europe and Australia, called “handlers,” don't remain in the stall with the horse. They load it and immediately duck out through an open section in the front door.

The Grade 1 Kentucky Derby is the only leg of the Triple Crown in which more than 14 horses compete. The traditional United Puett starting gate has 14 stalls, so in recent years Churchill has added an auxiliary starting gate to the United Puett to accommodate the the field, which may include as many as 20 horses. This year Churchill will use a new 20-stall starting gate, custom designed by Australian company Steriline Racing. The pontoon on the new gate is about three and a half inches wide, hardly wide enough to accommodate an assistant starter.

Getting the new gate ready for this year's Kentucky Derby has been a challenge. Steriline shipped the pieces and parts to Churchill Downs, but when it came time for the Australian engineers to fly to Louisville to assemble it, COVID-19 travel restrictions prohibited them from making the trip. The task fell on two maintenance workers on Churchill's payroll, a welder and a carpenter. Ed Berger, an outside salesman and consultant for Louisville supply shop Duke's A&W Enterprises, helped chase down missing parts and offer advice. Berger and his brother originally founded Duke's.

“It's kind of interesting, the whole situation,” Berger said. “Those two guys, and they would have some different helpers with them, but they were working via the phone with the engineer over in Australia, the engineer or technical support person available to them, and there were quite a few times when I went over there and this guy was FaceTiming them and showing them pictures: 'OK, how does this go together?' … I would sit there and watch. They were FaceTiming this fellow and they'd hold it up there, and he'd have to look at something and he would tell them, 'No, no. You have to put it on this-a-way or that way. There's quite a few integral parts that are on that starting gate. I found it quite amazing for what little bit I observed.”

One problem the maintenance men won't be able to solve is the narrower pontoons where the assistant starters will have to stand.

“They still have room to stand in there, but not as much,” Jordan said. “…If we have to make some modifications and do some stuff to make it more comfortable, I'm going to put my guys into the best situation I can put them in. I'm not going to put them in a vulnerable spot.”

Jordan hoped to test the Steriline gate during morning training on Aug. 24, but two of his crew tested positive for COVID-19, so the test was rescheduled for Aug. 26. As of publication time, this writer had no response from Churchill Downs as to whether that test went forward as scheduled or the results if it did. Jordan also said the Steriline was expected to be used in a race on opening day, Sept. 1. That leaves just four days until the Kentucky Derby to solve any problems that come to light.

“The first day of the meet, the racing secretary has actually written me a 1 1/4-mile race so I can take it out there and use it,” Jordan said. “Even if there are only ten horses in it, I'm going to take that gate out there and use it so the first time it's out on the racetrack and used isn't going to be for the Derby.”

Padding on the new starting gate also is a question. Churchill Downs's press release on Feb. 3 said, “All starting gates at Churchill Downs are outfitted with high-quality foam padding from Best Pad, a leading innovator of safety products for the horse racing industry that protect both jockeys and horses from injury. This seamless padding is applied to all metal surfaces of the starting gate, including front and rear poles, face plates, handrails, superstructure, and pontoons.”

“Best Pad did not pad the Steriline gate,” said Dr. Philip Shrimpton, president of Best Pad and the innovator behind the unique padding used on Churchill's other gates.

It remains unclear which parts of the 20-horse gate will be padded for Derby Day. Removing or opting not to put the padding on the walls of the Steriline gate would make the pontoons an inch wider, but to Hayes, the choice between more padding or more space is a tricky one.

“The only thing that we can really do is remove some padding, because [the gate] is already made, so the height, the weight, the width—everything is already made up,” he said. “So when they add padding, it's going to take away just an inch because of padding. So if we can get rid of that padding, it gives us that inch back, so that's kind of where we're in a Catch-22 — we're going to get rid of padding to get more room, or do we want less room and more padding. I've opted for more room, if I have a vote.”

The gate crew hopes to be able to practice on the Steriline gate an ample number of times to get accustomed to it before the Kentucky Derby.

“When I go in there, I'm just going to try to find a comfortable spot for me to be in,” Hayes said. “It's a small area, and we're talking a grown man, a horse, and a jockey are all trying to fit in this tight little area. So a little bit of my job is even just staying out of the way. … Like I said, I'm a big guy, so when I'm in there, when they leave, the last thing I want is for my body to be in the way of the jock or the horse. It's kind of a tight-rope act.”

When asked his opinion of the new gate, Jordan said simply, “Well, we bought it.”

The post This Year’s Derby Features A New 20-Stall Starting Gate, But Is It A Safe One For Assistant Starters? appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post