Times says Cuomo will empower track vets and make drastic changes in withdrawal times for corticosteroids and clenbuterol, immediately.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/sports/aqueduct-racing-officials-faulted-in-horse-deaths.html?ref=sports
Okay, I know that what I am about to say is going to be incredibly inflammatory. However, Drape definitely was too squeamish or too stupid to be a real journalist (i.e. get the real story). What I am about to write my be ugly and/or awful, but if somebody is going to write the type of article that Drape writes, then I think he needs to really get the story.
Drape makes the assertion that horses die at a greater rate at racetracks in america than at the racetrack in other countries as if this is why we are so awful here. First, I have no idea whether this assertion is true or not and how he comes to it. How does he measure it? What countries are in his study and which ones are not? Second, what is his point? Why is it relevant? If it were wrong, would everything be all okay here instead of going off the rails?
In America, any owner will lose their license to race if they sell a horse to a slaughterhouse. How many horses go from American racetracks to the slaughterhouse? In many other countries that are not America, it is standard operating procedure to sell horses straight from the track to slaughterhouses (and not only for dogfood, horse is a legitimate meat for human consumption in many countries). If you count horses sold from the track to slaughterhouses as death at the track, then I guarantee that all of a sudden, whatever metric Drape uses will be changing. Again, I am not even sure what the point he is trying to make is...but he definitely is missing the whole story (or worse, purposefully closing his eyes to the whole story) he purportedly believes is somehow worthy of ink and paper.
Also, if Drape truly wanted to get the story, he would be curious what percentage of horse population the USA races versus the percentage in other countries. My point is that if the USA races half the horses bred, but in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America or whatever the holy shining places he is taking about are only racing 25% of their relevant population....that may well have a bearing on whatever it is he is trying to say. For example, what happens to the horses in those countries that are not making it to the track in relation to their counterparts here that do make it to the track? How do they compare with the \"extra\" horses in the USA that get to race?
I have no idea what the answers are to my questions -- for all I know the answers could worsen things. The problem is, I have no confidence at all that the author of a theoretically influential article knows this either. What has happened to journalism? What happens when you cannot trust the journalist to ask the most basic questions?
\"Drape makes the assertion that horses die at a greater rate at racetracks in america than at the racetrack in other countries as if this is why we are so awful here. First, I have no idea whether this assertion is true or not and how he comes to it. How does he measure it? What countries are in his study and which ones are not?\"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/sports/24racing.html
\"The first comprehensive analysis of thoroughbred injury data in the United States and Canada shows that racehorses die at the rate of 2.04 per 1,000 starts, a rate twice as deadly as in any other country.
The figure was released on Tuesday by the Jockey Club, which compiled the data over a one-year period beginning Nov. 1, 2008. The information was submitted by 73 racetracks and accounted for 378,864 starts.\"
and ...
\"In Europe and other countries where racing is conducted less often, and mainly on turf and under more stringent rules about the use of medication, deaths of racehorses are far less frequent. In England, for example, the average risk of fatality ranges from 0.8 to 0.9 per 1,000 starts. In Victoria, Australia, studies reported the risk of fatality from 1989 to 2004 at 0.44 per 1,000 starts.\"
Some Aqueduct deaths could have been avoided, report says
By Matt Hegarty
Eleven of the 21 horses that died during the Aqueduct inner-track meet in 2011-2012 had displayed factors that represented a "missed opportunity" to prevent their deaths, according to a report prepared by a task force sought by the administration of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to examine the deaths.
The factors included indications of unsoundness that were evident to jockeys on two of the horses that died, the report said. In addition, a number of the horses had been treated with multiple painkillers while training prior to their fatal starts, a treatment regimen that may have complicated the ability of veterinarians and the trainers of claimed horses to recognize musculoskeletal problems that would have otherwise been evident.
The report raises serious questions about the state of horsemanship on the backstretches of New York racetracks, although it is likely that those same questions exist within the entire U.S. racing industry. As a whole, the report – which states that no single factor could be found to account for the spate of deaths – paints a picture of a racing industry in which legal medications, especially painkillers, are routinely administered to horses while racing and training regardless of whether horses have been found with problems.
The report is being released at noon Friday in concert with a series of recommendations that will be announced by the Cuomo administration. The Daily Racing Form was provided with the report on Friday morning by an official under an agreement to lift the noon embargo if another publication was provided with the report or proprietary information about the report. On Friday morning, the New York Times published an article about the report and the recommendations that the Cuomo administration would make, quoting members of the administration.
The 208-page report includes a long list of recommendations, including a ban on the administration of a powerful corticosteroid, methylprednisolone acetate, within 15 days of a race, along with a ban on the intra-articular administration of all other corticosteroids within seven days of a race. The authors of the report said that a 15-day ban for methylprednisolone acetate was warranted due to scientific evidence that the drug can have a "degradative" effect on joint tissue, unlike the other corticosteroids.
In addressing corticosteroids, it noted that many of the horses that died were administered the drugs but trainers and veterinarians did not report the administrations to stewards in violation of a state rule. The report said that efforts to enforce the rule should be stepped up.
The task force also recommended that the bronchial dilator clenbuterol be banned within 21 days of a race, rather than within 96 hours of a race, noting that it "learned that a large number of the horses at NYRA tracks were being administered daily doses of clenbuterol, albeit in compliance with the [96-hour] rule." Though clenbuterol is ostensibly prescribed for treatment of chronic lung problems, many trainers use the drug as a substitute for banned anabolic steroids because of its ability to build muscle mass when used regularly.
The task force also recommended that all horses that die at NYRA tracks be subjected to a post-race necropsy; that the racing and wagering board hire an equine medical director; that NYRA separate the duties of veterinarians from the racing office to remove conflicts of interests; and that NYRA consider the installation of a synthetic racetrack at Aqueduct.
The task force was convened in the spring of this year after eight horses died at Aqueduct during an 18-day period in March, bringing the total number of deaths at the meet to 21 (two of the deaths did not occur during a race), and one week after Cuomo sent a letter to NYRA demanding an investigation into the deaths. The task force members were Alan Foreman, a lawyer and the chairman of the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association; Jerry Bailey, the retired Hall of Fame rider; Dr. Scott Palmer, an equine practitioner and the past president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners; and Dr. Mary Scollay-Ward, the equine medical director of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.
The deaths occurred during the first meet in which NYRA, Aqueduct's operator, was using payments from a casino that opened in October 2011 to boost purses. The report noted that substantial increases to purses in claiming races may have influenced trainers to enter horses that may not have been sound.
"An unintended consequence of the increase in claiming purses was a relative 'devaluation' of the horse, whereby the purse was of substantially greater value than the horse competing for it," the report said. "The Task Force believes this imbalance incentivized poor decisions in the management of some horses."
The report also stated that the rapid run-up in claiming activity had put horses at risk because veterinary records were not shared when horses changed barns, limiting the ability of trainers to assess a horse's health and soundness.
Seventeen of the 21 deaths occurred while or after horses ran in claiming races. The other four occurred in maiden special weight races.
In some cases, the purses of the races in which the horses died were more than five times the claiming price of the race. The task force said that the racing and wagering board should pass a rule limiting the ratio of purse to claiming price to 1.6, which would mean the winner's share of the purse would be equal to the claiming price.
In April, the state racing and wagering board passed a rule requiring that a claiming race could not have a purse that is excess of two times the claiming price.
The task force reviewed all of the veterinary records for the horses that died, and it said that "in many cases, the medical records provided to the Task Force were not compliant with NYSRWB rules by failing to provide medical justification for the procedure performed." It said that in most cases trainers had determined what medical treatments would be administered to horses, rather than veterinarians.
In two cases, the report's authors said that jockeys had known the horses to be unsound but did not alert veterinarians because they feared "economic reprisal." The task force recommended that jockeys meet regularly with veterinarians so that they understand the physical risks of riding an unsound horse.
One interesting angle on all of this is that NYRA neither runs the testing nor I believe has access to the test results-- all the SRWB.
The people on the panel are serious and thoughtful, we\'ll see what the report says, and it\'s important to separate it from the political power play using it that\'s going on.
Clenbuterol has been a problem for a long time. Taking away Cortisone close to a race will definitely reduce the number of horses entered. And if this really happens there will be some real unknowns involving horses coming from other jurisdictions where the rules are different (both for betting and buying them).
magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...........
............> and ...
>
> \"In Europe and other countries where racing is
> conducted less often, and mainly on turf and under
> more stringent rules about the use of medication,
> deaths of racehorses are far less frequent. In
> England, for example, the average risk of fatality
> ranges from 0.8 to 0.9 per 1,000 starts. In
> Victoria, Australia, studies reported the risk of
> fatality from 1989 to 2004 at 0.44 per 1,000
> starts.\"
I realize you are only the messenger and appreciate the work digging this out. This is good for dialog and please do not take my comments below as being against you (unless you happen to be Joe Drape).
The excerpt from the older article only answers a few questions, leaves plenty more unanswered, and raises more questions.
The older article shows that the \"control\" group of countries the US is measured against are cherry-picked. Apparently, the \"control\" group consists of (1) \"Europe\" (specific countries not identified is it all or some of europe? - Where are Russia, Ukraine, or Turkey in terms of \"Europe\"?) and (2) those countries where racing is conducted less often and mainly on turf under more stringent rules (again,no countries specified -- obviously Australia is included though).
The point is, for all we know, this is a completely cherry picked group designed to get a result somebody wanted for their agenda. If you really wanted to compare against the rest of the world, why not include all countries with over X or more starts? Think how much racing goes on in all of Latin America. Think about Japan and all of Asia. Also, how are these cases reported in each of the countries? What if reporting standards are not consistent (I think the phrase is garbage in - garbage out).
Second, why only focus on horses who die in races? What about horses who die in training or die the next day? Why is it worse to die on the track in the afternoon than dieing on the track in the morning or in the stall overnight? If these numbers do include training deaths, do they only include racetrack deaths or do they also include farm, training center, veterinarian facility deaths? What about deaths in breeding? Plenty of cases of stallions, dams, and foals dieing in all sorts of ways. Why aren\'t these relevant? People who work with horses don\'t want to kill their horses (unless they are in the slaughter business) but unfortunately sometimes horses die. It really seems like there are people who are dead set against racing and they do not care whether their studies have rational foundations or not...they just want to get the particular result they are looking for to say that racing is barbaric and should be done away with. (Although the same logic could be used to get rid of football and boxing).
Finally, what about horses sent to slaughter? Why is it bad if a horse dies in a racing accident, but not bad if the same racehorse is sent to a slaughterhouse before it injures itself racing? Why aren\'t those horses included in the statistics for European racing or where they race less often and on turf and under more stringent rules? In Europe, you can buy horse meat in the grocery stores or order it in restaurants. Here is a link to a random newspaper article I found in about 15 seconds of searching on google -- http://www.irishcentral.com/news/300-Irish-horses-slaughtered-weekly---eaten-in-European-restaurants-151184795.html -- it seems to me crazy to say that Ireland is way ahead of the USA in terms of civilization because in Ireland one horse in a 1000 starts dies while in america two horses out of a 1000 starts dies. What about the 300 racehorses a week sent to slaughter houses and what about the 6 horse meat processing plants in Ireland?
Why is the focus on the extra 1 out of 1000 starters that dies in an american race as the catastrophe? Why don\'t they look at all the horses and what is happening to them? What if America races half the horses it breeds and Ireland only races a quarter of the horses it breeds with the balance going to the slaughterhouse?
Look, I do not want a fight. But, I love horse racing and I feel like our sport is totally unfairly picked on. People want a result (to stop racing) and they do not care about logic or reason. I guess horses are supposed to be immortal and never die. What about horse life expectancy? for all we know, horses in general are living longer than before, but a very small number are dying earlier in accidents (look at humans....at the same time medical advances were happening, cars were invented, people living longer, but new ways for younger people to die in accidents). I honestly do not know what the answers are in all of this, but I do know that all these anti-horse racing articles that dress themselves up as being serious and scientific are not serious and scientific, they are agenda driven drivel.
\"Why is the focus on the extra 1 out of 1000 starters that dies in an american race as the catastrophe?\"
So Cal,
Current situation can almost be traced to the time Eight Belles/Barbaro broke down during nationally televised TC events. The Loon became emboldened with the help of phony politicians who sought to gain political capital on the stump.It snowballed from there, breeders chimed in.The uniformed Joe Drape types piled on. Bastions of racing,like car dealership owner Tracy Farmer schooled us on the evils of Lasix after reading some study, etc etc.No one dared to defend the game,discredit the many misconceptions, admit there are problems in the game requiring urgent attention.
Racing isn\'t very different from 20 years ago as to how the horse is treated/medicated. Modern legal stuff better,more powerful,more liberally used. Here in NY SRWB will push back the time some permitted meds are to be administered,curtail the use of clenb and lameo\'s will be subject to extra scrutiny. Regretfully, horses will still break down randomly during training/racing,probably at close to the same rate.Doubt much will change in that regard.
Mike
JS;
I\'m surprised you don\'t remember me, as I identified myself to you in a private message about two years ago on this very site. Remember? It was after you had been published in a respected general interest publication that will go unnamed, and I wrote to confirm that you were indeed the author. I don\'t want a fight either, but did you ever stop to consider that you may be the one writing agenda-driven drivel?
Bob
Re: Joe Drape and the question asked: \"What has happened to journalism?\"...
Stunning that Drape and others continue to report that anabolic steroids have been banned. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BANNED! Just incredible to read that. Like the industry has congratulated itself and wiped its hands, saying: \"Well folks, we can cross THAT problem off the list! Hooray for us!\" Nuh-uh. Now, just like before (for example), those Pletcher horses at the beginning of the year can still return with stunningly fast ThoroGraphs after a layoff. Between the gaps on the graph, those animals have been Bobby Bonded.
Also interesting that the changes to the racing schedule over the last few years - whereby trainers wanted and got more time between races (for example, The Peter Pan used to be only two weeks before the Belmont. We can\'t have THAT, can we?) - certainly are a result of, well... the acceptance of sheets theory. More time between races... new anabolic steroid withdrawal times. Or better said, the reverse.
Re: task force member Jerry Bailey...
I remember Jerry quoted in the Racing Form about Bill Mott\'s CIGAR after that animal\'s infertility problems raised eyebrows. Bailey said something like: \"I know Billy and he would never use steroids!\" Uh-huh. Turned out Jerry was wrong.
Welcome back, John.
magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JS;
>
> I\'m surprised you don\'t remember me, as I
> identified myself to you in a private message
> about two years ago on this very site. Remember?
> It was after you had been published in a respected
> general interest publication that will go unnamed,
> and I wrote to confirm that you were indeed the
> author. I don\'t want a fight either, but did you
> ever stop to consider that you may be the one
> writing agenda-driven drivel?
>
> Bob
Bob,
Apologies for forgetting you! You did in fact write me a very nice message! None of this or the following is personal (I hope you do not mind me confirming that you are not Joe Drape) -- it is just debate.
First off, I do have an agenda, and I freely admit it. There is no question that what I am writing is agenda driven. As to whether I am writing drivel or not, I am putting it out there and will let sunshine do the trick to determine whether it is reasonable or not.
I think there is a big difference here. I am a private individual minding my own business enjoying my favorite hobby, and the Times (where my father and many friends of mine use to work and still work) decides it wants to beat up on and do away with my hobby. I want to mind my own business. The Times is throwing the first stone. Of course I have an agenda, I am being attacked and am fighting back. The question is not whether or not I have an agenda...I do. The question is whether or not I am correctly pointing out unfair reporting at the Times.
Here is what is unfair about the NY Times reporting -- they want to say that the number of animal fatalities in one aspect of one hobby is scandalous, but they are unwilling to truly look at the question of what is an acceptable level of animal fatalities. Is that fair? Look, animals die in all sorts of ways while in the care of humans. It is unfortunate, but it happens. if no deaths were acceptable, we would outlaw owning cats and dogs. So, why is the right way to look at this question to look at one metric...one tiny microscopic sliver of the whole. Why is the USA so much worse than Ireland which slaughters racehorses who cannot make it at the track?
What is unreasonable about what I am saying? Why is the Times approach a reasonable approach to the question of what is scandalous and what is not?
If a young veterinarian wants to work racetrack practice, they are always warned that they will have to closely examine their adherance to their own ethics. It\'s true, many vets do exactly what they are told to do by trainers. It\'s the only way to make money. If you start wanting to get a diagnosis before hocks are injected, and having the vet making the decision to inject the hocks or not, you\'ll not have much business. If any.
Obviously, not true for all trainers, all vets. It comes down to how much money an owner is willing to spend on proper medical care of their horse.
WARNING! There is no nutritional handicapping information in this post. If you are looking for help in cashing a ticket, find another post (this should probably be boilerplate on all of my posts, but I'm not going to be my usual concise self here, so I've added this for your protection).
J-
No offense taken and happy to see none given. To your points and questions (from both of your two most recent posts, in reverse order). You wrote:
"I think there is a big difference here. I am a private individual minding my own business enjoying my favorite hobby, and the Times (where my father and many friends of mine use to work and still work) decides it wants to beat up on and do away with my hobby."
I don't see it that way. Alan Schwartz and others in the NYT sports department have written some terribly damning stories about the NFL and the NHL. Is the Times trying to smother pro football and hockey with a pillow? Or, are they saying "we can do better"? I think this is what newspapers are supposed to do. I think the racing stories in the NYT are having such an impact because handicappers and industry insiders rarely discuss these things outside the temple, or with civilians. So when a mirror is held up to certain aspects of the game and the general public starts vomiting, industry people tend to get defensive.
You wrote: "Here is what is unfair about the NY Times reporting -- they want to say that the number of animal fatalities in one aspect of one hobby is scandalous, but they are unwilling to truly look at the question of what is an acceptable level of animal fatalities. Is that fair? Look, animals die in all sorts of ways while in the care of humans. It is unfortunate, but it happens. if no deaths were acceptable, we would outlaw owning cats and dogs."
Generally, I don't believe a newspaper can invent a scandal. A newspaper tells a story. It is up to the dreaded "general public" to determine whether or not that story is in fact a scandal. Otherwise, it's fishwrap, and it goes away.
And here is probably a good time to address "acceptable deaths" for all animals in the United States. Essentially, under our laws, animals are the property of the people who own them. If I own a horse or a dog, and I get tired of owning a horse or a dog, there is no law stopping me from enlisting a compliant vet to euthanize the horse or the dog. But the law does draw the line at animal cruelty, to which Michael Vick or that hatrack Paragallo would most assuredly attest. Racing's "image problem" is that millions of Americans perceive "business as usual" at the racetrack as just another form of animal cruelty. You can argue with their perceptions, but – absent serious changes in the industry – good luck changing them.
Also, it probably does not seem fair to many industry types, but horses (and dogs, I would contend) have special status among American animals. Even though, as sighthound has aptly noted here, horses don't have a real presence in most American's lives today, I think they still have a hold on the American consciousness. Between the Pony Express and John Wayne and cowboy culture, I think there remains the idea that men and women and horses built this country, and that we owe them something. (The horses, that is. Seems like women are still on their own).
You wrote: "The older article shows that the \"control\" group of countries the US is measured against are cherry-picked. Apparently, the \"control\" group consists of (1) \"Europe\" (specific countries not identified is it all or some of europe? - Where are Russia, Ukraine, or Turkey in terms of \"Europe\"?) and (2) those countries where racing is conducted less often and mainly on turf under more stringent rules (again,no countries specified -- obviously Australia is included though).
The point is, for all we know, this is a completely cherry picked group designed to get a result somebody wanted for their agenda."
Here is Rick Arthur, the noted equine vet, from a speech he delivered at a Jockey Club Round Table (emphasis added):
"This is important so let me repeat: 90% of all horses suffering fatal musculoskeletal injuries racing or training have pre-existing pathology — a prior injury — at the site of their fatal injury.
Why are our examining veterinarians missing those pre-existing injuries? That is the question.
The examining veterinarians are concerned with two classes of drugs commonly used in racing in the U.S.: corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Both are anti-inflammatories. Corticosteroids are cortisone drugs; phenylbutazone and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatories are drugs like Advil and Tylenol. The public knows non-steroidal anti-inflammatories as painkillers. That's how they are advertised to the public, because they are painkillers. Obviously, our horses can't talk. Veterinarians — trainers and jockeys for that matter — evaluate a horse's well-being and soundness by clinical signs, signs that are masked by analgesics, that's painkillers, and anti-inflammatories. These drugs are not allowed in IFHA rules in places like Ireland, England, France, Dubai, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, and other countries, but they are allowed in the U.S.
Racing fatality rates in the U.S. are two- to three-times higher than other major racing countries that don't allow phenylbutazone and other drugs. My international colleagues have no doubt our medication policies, especially in phenylbutazone, are the cause of this disparity. I'm not convinced it is that simple, but there is no question medication regulation is the most glaring difference between U.S. and other major racing countries."
http://www.jockeyclub.com/roundtable_10.asp?section=11
Please note that I did not "cherry pick" by leaving off the part following the emphasized section. And here is Joe Drape writing about the estimable Bill Nader. Again, emphasis added:
"Bill Nader, the executive director of the Hong Kong Jockey Club, said that Hong Kong did not allow Lasix on race day or any other day. It averages only 42 incidents of bleeding a season. After the first incident, a horse is banned from racing for three months. If there is a second incident, Nader said, the horses are often forced to retire.
The Hong Kong Jockey Club has perhaps the most restrictive medication rules in the world. Over the past five years, it has had only eight sudden deaths among 45,000 runners, or one per 5,692 starters. The American fatality rate is 2.14 per 1,000 starters.
Nader, a longtime executive with the New York Racing Association, said that Hong Kong's commitment to integrity also meant stiff punishments for trainers and jockeys, as well as transparency — the veterinary history of each of its horses is available to the public.
The strict policies, he said, were good for business. Even though Hong Kong has a population of seven million and races only 83 days a year, bettors put $10.3 billion through the windows last year, almost as much as the United States."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/sports/medication-is-cited-in-horse-racings-decline-in-us.html?_r=0
Now, I don't have anything for you on Russia or Turkey, but can you really consider that a valid comparison? To me, that is like some so-called liberal western-style democracy with a very noticeable wart that – when criticized for said wart - protests by saying "but look at Iran or North Korea!" Is this the new slogan for NYRA? "Hey! We're not as bad as Uzbekistan!"
You wrote: "Finally, what about horses sent to slaughter? Why is it bad if a horse dies in a racing accident, but not bad if the same racehorse is sent to a slaughterhouse before it injures itself racing? Why aren\'t those horses included in the statistics for European racing or where they race less often and on turf and under more stringent rules?"
Yes, people eat horsemeat in Europe. I've heard people eat dogs in certain parts of Asia. This is what people are allowed to do with their property. We don't allow horse slaughter here in the US any more, partly because of their special place in our national consciousness and also because we have neighbors to our north and south who will do it for us while we look away. I would have no objection to your including slaughtered horses in the European numbers so long as you also added our own unfortunates to the American numbers.
You wrote: "I guess horses are supposed to be immortal and never die. What about horse life expectancy? for all we know, horses in general are living longer than before, but a very small number are dying earlier in accidents"
How many times have you tossed a horse that seemed to be too fast to be running in a cheap claimer? When these horses break down, often times it is not an accident. Yes, this is all about one or two horses per 1,000 starts. Roughly one a week on the New York circuit. We can do better.
Bob