Hiding Death in Plain Sight -- Going Behind the Screen and Pointing the Finger At Someone Else

          Everyone agrees that there should be fewer breakdowns and fatalities from racing and training.  To seek fewer breakdowns is to admit and acknowledge that there will always be some breakdowns – that some level of death will always occur.  Refusal to state this fact apparently precludes the collection and dissemination of information on breakdowns and fatalities during training and racing.  The failure of the powers that be to collect and publish this information led to the New York Times reviewing racing charts to generate a “guesstimate” at the number of horse racing fatalities.  This lack of information also allows people to opine that horses inbred to Mr. Prospector are doomed to breakdown.  The industry was basically silent as it lacked the information to respond other than to dismiss their analysis due to the inclusion of quarter horse races.

            A recent article summarizing a meeting of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission provides a good example of the “buck passing” and denial regarding race track fatalities.  Dr. Mary Scollay, KHRC equine medical director, reported to the Commission on the active steps taken to reduce fatalities at Churchill Downs from 8 in May to 2 in June.  The implication was that this drop was due to policies and procedures put into place after May; however, we have no way of actually proving that these procedures worked or if the change in the number of breakdowns was even statistically significant.  Without context the data is meaningless.    

            Even more interesting is that Dr. Scollay seemed to blame another “out of state” track for the May breakdowns stating that there was a "commonality to that population of horses in that they had participated in racing at a specific venue before coming to Churchill.”  Given the traditional movement of horses north as the weather improves, it seemed likely that this “specific venue” was Oaklawn Park.  However, the Doctor declined to identify the facility.  Given that a substantial portion of Churchill’s racing population likely comes from Oaklawn, I don’t know if it is fair to suggest that Oaklawn’s safety procedures are lacking.  Likewise, the list of fatalities was not disclosed although it may be requested through a public records request.   

            Intrigued the vagueness in this response, I did a little “New York Times” style analysis of the May charts from Churchill Downs.  The results show six likely fatalities.  I do not know if the other fatalities occurred during training or if that injury was not reflected in the chart.  None of these horses have raced or worked since the date indicated.  Interestingly enough three horses of the six had previously raced at Oaklawn while two had last raced at Keeneland.  Also of interest is that three of the six breakdowns occurred on the turf course despite fewer turf races being run than dirt races. 

     

Date	Horse Name	Last Race Location	Churchill Race	Comment
5/1/2012	Tutti Buona Gente	Fair Grounds	Mile and a Sixteenth on Turf Starter Allowance	Pulled Up, Vanned Off
5/3/2012	Auspicious Risk	Oaklawn	Six Furlongs on Dirt Claiming ($16K)	Eased, Lame
5/10/2012	RJ's Afleet	Oaklawn	Mile and a Sixteenth on Dirt Allowance	Off Slow, Vanned Off
5/11/2012	On Stirling Bridge	Tampa	Mile and a Sixteenth on Turf Allowance	Lost Footing, Walked Off
5/17/2012	Bulldog Legend	Keeneland	Mile on Dirt Maiden Claiming	Broke Down
5/18/2012	Woodbourne	Keeneland	Mile on Turf Allowance Optional Claimer ($50K)	Broke Down
5/27/2012	Whistlin Sam	Oaklawn	Six Furlongs on Dirt Maiden Claiming ($10K)	Pulled Up, Vanned Off

            Again, we are left with more questions than answers because the information is not being collected and distributed properly.  The Commission may not have intended it, but the summary makes it sound like the “other track” is responsible for the breakdowns and not Churchill Downs or the weather or anything else.  This suggestion is irresponsible and does nothing to reduce the number of fatalities going forward.  Off the top of my head, here are some questions that deserve answers regarding breakdowns

·         Do horses entered in claiming races break down more frequently than other horses? 

·         Do horses break down more frequently in route races or sprints? 

·         Where do horses tend to break down in a race – at the beginning when accelerating or in the stretch when tiring? 

·         Do horses break down more frequently in sloppy going?

·         Does racing at two have any connection to break downs?

            So let us be clear about the consequences of horse racing – it will involve some level of death to both horse and rider.  Our goal should be to reduce this level to the lowest level possible for all involved.  To do this we need good data that is openly shared no matter how bad or negative the story might be.  The Jockey Club should support the public disclosure of all race track fatalities the same way vet’s lists and trainer infractions are publicized.  Putting up a screen to hide break downs does nothing to diminish the problem – it only hides it from plain sight.  We all know what is happening on the other side of the screen – horses –  lots of them –  are dying.