When it comes to the recent spate of breakdowns at Laurel, there’s a lot we don’t know. In racing, not knowing a lot usually means inertia wins, and nothing happens.
To its credit, the Maryland Racing Commission has nevertheless moved to take action to promote the safety of our horses and riders.
They’re right to do so, because although there’s a lot we don’t know, there’s a lot we do, and that area of knowledge should become the basis for making change.
PRE-RACE
in horses “fatal musuloskeletal injuries are [usually] the acute manifestation of pre-existing, milder injuries that develop over several weeks to months,” Dr. Susan Stover of the University of California-Davis testified to Congress in 2008.
That makes the pre-race vet exam all the more important. The Racing Commission’s directive to the state veterinarian’s office to expand the pre-race routine to match recommended best practices is the right move and may make a real difference. In the first two days of racing this week, 14 horses were scratched by the veterinarians, exactly double the seven they scratched in the first two days of racing last week.
CLAIMING
The increase in purses has led to a jump in claiming activity at Laurel, and many observers are inclined to place the blame there. Whether that’s true or not, the fact is that Maryland has never before seen so many horses claimed from races. That’s a grand-scale experiment, and the racing community needs to do everything in its power to ensure that the safety and welfare of the horses remains paramount.
Some have argued for a rule that would require newly claimed horses to be raised in value for 30 days after the claim. The raise rule, however, will do little to protect horses, while serving as a backdoor tax on claimants. Only two of the 10 horses in the Commission’s study were making their first start after a claim, and it is likely — given recent form — that one or both would have run at the higher level, had it been mandated. Moreover, these rules typically affect just one race — the horse’s first off the claim.
Another oft-mentioned approach is to limit the purse size to some multiple of the claiming price, thus reducing the incentive to claim horses. The problem, however, is that the proposal ignores two important racing facts: first, that the expense of maintaining a horse is usually much greater than the cost of buying it and second, that the busiest horses on the grounds are invariably the least expensive — precisely because low purses mean that they must run frequently to have any chance of earning their keep.
A better approach is to remove — or at least minimize — the incentive for connections to “dump” unsound horses in an effort to get them claimed away. “We need to show that we want to race responsibly,” a backstretch vet practicing at Laurel told me. A rule allowing a claim to be voided if the horse breaks down or does not finish a race would help to do that.
In addition, the racing office should investigate the possibility of offering a wider array of “starter” events — non-claiming races restricted to claiming horses. For owners looking to hang onto their cheaper horses, these might provide a good way to do so.
MEDICATION
Maryland is among the eight-state group that recently approved uniform medication policies that specify which drugs horses may ingest and limit raceday medication to Lasix only.
That’s the right move. While there are critics from both sides — those who feel it is too stringent and those who feel it’s too lax — harmonizing our regulations with those of our neighbors is a good step. Moreover, the change should prevent connections from “forum-shopping” for places where lax drug rules enable unsound horses to run.
Another step the Commission should consider is invoking a more rational system of penalties. The current system largely treats minor violations as relatively major and major violations as only slightly moreso. Neither makes sense. Racing’s black eye in the public mind has much less to do with which drugs are permitted and which prohibited and much more to do with a penalty system that allows habitual and egregious violators of the rules to continue to participate. That should change.
DATA GATHERING
One of the real challenges in assessing the severity and causes of the recent spike in breakdowns is the paucity of data with which to compare it. The Commission should continue to analyze and publish information on every breakdown going forward.
It should also attempt to keep records of those horses that break down during morning works. That would give us a more complete data set and better enable us to assess what’s happening and how best to respond.
The good news is that the Racing Commission, and the racing community at large, are taking this problem seriously. The challenge now is to take the right steps to protect the health and welfare of our horses and the safety of the riders.
Loading tweets...
19 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Michael
March 15, 2013 at 10:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like your point about Starter events. Last week in the Extras, I noticed a Starter that was for horses that ran for $25k cl or less AND n/w2. That is the first time I had seen AND in a Starter event in Maryland so I asked the secretary if there was a chance that the same Starter could be written for $10k cl or $7500 cl (or less) and I was told it was highly unlikely. To your point, some of us do not want to lose our horse and would welcome this type of SA. This actually discourages any future ownership opportunities for some.
admin
March 15, 2013 at 10:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks for checking in, Michael. I saw that starter, too – I think they used it. I think it’s worth looking at; a year ago, if you had the second or third most claimable horse in a race, you were almost certainly safe. Today, that same horse will probably get taken. Giving folks more options might be a good middle ground.
James
March 15, 2013 at 12:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Real good articial!!!…Pre Race inspections by honest vets and weeding out the cheaters/repeters/animal abusers will go a hell of long way in bringing “The Game” back to the top of the sports world where it rightfully belongs!!!…PERIOD…ty…
MD Racer
March 15, 2013 at 1:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I love the Starter idea . Parx writes a STR 16,000 NW, NW3, NW4 and they write a STR 25,000 NW2,NW3,NW4 . Monmouth writes a STR 10,000 NW2. Atlantic City writes all Starter and non claiming races because of the short meet and there is no claiming. CT has had a Starter Series/Tournament in the Past. MNR usually has a Marathon STR series of races at increasing distances. NYRA and Parx often have Starter Handicaps. Michael – were you told why the race was not likely to be written ? We will never know if these types of races will fill unless we experiment. They fill regularly at the aforementioned tracks and are usually very competitive.
admin
March 15, 2013 at 1:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks for the kind words, James – I appreciate it.
Good point, Racer. I guess I didn’t realize how many other starter formats were out there.
Michael
March 15, 2013 at 1:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hi MD Racer. I was not given an explanation. Just that we could only expect to see that race only once in a while and ONLY as an extra on the overnights and most likely not at the lower level that I requested ($7500). You are 1000% correct when you say we will never know if they will fill unless we experiment. And filling races must be a problem since overnights did not come out 5:30 last night. When Laurel was on the turf and easily filling the card, overnights were out by 1:30. I find that many horse people are stuck in their ways and not willing to do much adjusting. No thinking outside the box.
Heidi Carpenter
March 15, 2013 at 2:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
All claiming races in the country should allow a claim to be voided if a horse breaks down, does not finish or is vanned off (even after crossing the wire). Kudos to Maryland for taking quick action on all fronts.
admin
March 15, 2013 at 3:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks for checking in, Heidi. I agree that a void rule would do much to alter the incentives in place, and should be kinder to horses.
Robert
March 15, 2013 at 3:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Frank, great post.
One item concerning claiming that must be stopped is dropping a sore horse in price in hopes the animal, if it lives, becomes someone else’s problem.
There is a very simple solution, any horse that is claimed and is euthanize or is placed on the vet’s list, the claimant can void the claim.
One item that is seldom addressed because it is not detectable is radio shock wave. It is disgusting how many horses are “shocked” before they run. There is no doubt this “therapeutic therapy” has greatly contributed to the increase in breakdowns.
Rick
March 15, 2013 at 4:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Having been involved in racing as a fan for about 50 years and as an owner for about 12, I have come to the conclusion that claiming races should be eliminated from the sport. The original idea was to even the fields because, theoretically, higher level horses would not run at lower levels because they could be taken and lower level horses would not run at higher levels because they would not be competitive. However, those “rules” no longer work (if they ever did) as many very large stables don’t think twice about making a massive class drop for a horse to get a win and care little if the horse is taken.
It would really be easy to write conditions for the horses based on their ability which would lead to very competitive races. Since no horse could be claimed, there wold be no reason to run a sick or injured horse “to get it claimed”. Owners of horses not talented enough to compete in allowance races or above would have a place to run without having to be concerned about losing their horse.
What about people who actually want to sell their horse? Well, besides privates sales and auctions, the tracks could set up a system for buying/selling horses identical to the current claiming system except that no race would be involved. Sellers could list their horse on a database at a sale price and buyers could purchase that horse if they chose (and even have an opportunity to inspect it). And if a horse on that database is scheduled to race, then the selling of that horse would be suspended until well after that race had been run.
ratherrapid
March 15, 2013 at 5:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
1. scientific latest technology pre-race exams are a must for televised races.
2. 75% of this stuff would be eliminated by one simple rule that holds the offending trainer accountable: a. put any trainer with a morning or afternoon breakdown on immediate probation pending steward’s investigation of appropriate pre-race training and diagnostics. Any negligence would then result in a lengthy suspension.
3. Minimum training standards for pre-race entries scientifically based would further dramatically decrease the injury rate.
We are letting our trainers destroy our horses with their negligence. Time to wake up.
admin
March 15, 2013 at 6:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks for checking in, Robert, Rick, and rapid… I appreciate it.
I agree on the claim void, Robert, and that’s an interesting point about shockwave – Glenn Thompson made a similar point on (I think) an earlier post.
Rick – Kudos to you for your long-term involvement. You’re a brave man, or perhaps a glutton for punishment! While your idea is interesting, I suspect claiming races are here to stay. That’s both because of tradition, which racing has a hard time shaking loose of, and also because claiming does function as a very efficient and inexpensive market for buying and selling horses involving little administration and thus little overhead. But who knows – maybe I’ll be proven wrong.
Rapid – those are all interesting ideas. I suspect trainers would balk at the second and possibly the third, but if they came to be… well, then that would likely change things.
Rick
March 15, 2013 at 9:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
While I would like to see claiming races eliminated for the reasons that I gave, I am not naive enough to believe that it will happen in the short term (if ever).
But the theory of buying and selling anything is that the buyer is a willing buyer and that the seller is a willing seller. Those conditions are very often not present in claiming races. Claiming races are examples of adversarial selling where either the seller or the buyer (or both) is unhappy with the sale. Only rarely will a horse be claimed where everyone leaves the table pleased with the outcome.
By the way, another post mentioned “shock wave” therapy. I’m not a vet but it sounds as if there is a misunderstanding here. The “shock wave” is not an electrical shock but rather a pressure wave which supposedly stimulates healing. There is generally little if any pain. The issue with “shock wave” therapy as it relates to races horses is that there is usually a short-term anesthetic effect which means that no horse should be raced until that effect has worn off. Of course, if the original injury also requires rest, which many do, then that horse should not be raced until the injury has healed. Anyone interested in “shock wave” therapy can find many articles on the internet explaining it.
Heather
March 16, 2013 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Excellent balanced article.
Lead Pony
March 16, 2013 at 6:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Both New York and CA have a void/claim rule. Probably will never happen in MD as our Racing Commission contains members who own/claim horses and employ trainers active in the claiming game.
admin
March 16, 2013 at 8:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks, Heather – I appreciate it.
Thanks for checking in, Pony. Perhaps you’re right, but I think momentum is going in the direction you seemingly favor this time.
Michael
March 18, 2013 at 8:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rick nailed it:
The theory of buying and selling anything is that the buyer is a willing buyer and that the seller is a willing seller. Those conditions are very often not present in claiming races. Claiming races are examples of adversarial selling where either the seller or the buyer (or both) is unhappy with the sale. Only rarely will a horse be claimed where everyone leaves the table pleased with the outcome.
Why can’t there be Allowance/Optional Claimers for lower ranks. Why do the horses that “can’t run fast” have ONLY claiming races to enter???? And why are the “better” horses always protected. They should be available just like every other horse whether or not they want to lose them. In other words, level the playing field for ALL horses then maybe secretaries will think outside the box when writing conditions. Right now, I only see copy/paste for conditions with maybe a date or purse change.
Brian
March 21, 2013 at 9:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The racing industry needs to identify problems causing breakdowns, but scattershot solutions will only cause more problems. As an example, the recent change proposed to require all claimed horses to be run for at least a 25% increase in claiming price. Why? The numbers don’t support the need for this rule. From the beginning of the Laurel meet 9/5/12 through 3/9/13, 27 horses have been dropped off a claim and run back in 30 days. All finished their next race, won at a 18.5% rate and finished in the money 66.7% of the time. Also, those 27 horses went on to 99 more races to date and continued to win at a 23.3% rate and finish in the money 60.6%. Simply put, these horses on the whole don’t need this type of protection. All this will accomplish is making it harder to fill races so the racing secretary will have to cajole trainers to enter horses that are not ready to run, resulting in either small fields that attract no interest from the general public or running horses that will be more susceptible to the breakdowns we are trying to avoid.
Overall, at Laurel since September, there have been 21 horses classified as breakdowns. Three came from starter allowance races, so if one seventh of all breakdowns occur in starter allowance races, I don’t see how more starter races is necessarily a solution. Eight of the 21 (38.1%) breakdowns occurred in the two cheapest level of racing in Maryland, maidens running for an $8000 claiming price or $5000 claimers who have not won two races lifetime.
My two solutions to curb breakdowns, would be to LOWER the purses at the bottom levels where a substantial percentage to the breakdowns occur and a vet database available to all licensed entities. Since the slot fueled purses will be bumped another 10% for the Pimlico meet, why not bump most of the races 12.5% and drop the two lowest levels 15%? Yes, you’ll lose a portion of your horse population at the bottom level, but by reaching out to better stock with increased purses at the mid to upper levels, perhaps we can get better horses on the grounds to run where we have one of the most supportive racing office operations in the country.
A Vet Database should be easy. If med use and “procedures” are suspected issues surrounding breakdowns, requiring all vets servicing horses on the grounds to provide the information to a controlled database should be obvious. There is no reason for owners and trainers to hide behind “vet – horse” confidentiality. I receive an itemized monthly bill for everything done with any of my horses and I can’t see a problem making this information available for all horses running on the grounds going back six months. Any horse shipping in would have to provide six months’ worth of the same information at time of entry. After six months, the records would be purged monthly so that there is at most six months of records. If any horse is found to have anything not in the database, there could be serious sanctions for the trainer. If racing has the ability to be more transparent, who are we protecting by not doing so?
admin
March 22, 2013 at 12:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Great observations, Brian – thanks for sharing them. I would have one quibble with the data you’ve presented, more specifically a conclusion you’ve drawn: I don’t think you can reasonably dismiss starter races because 3 horses broke down in them. Similarly, the one horse that broke down in a stake from 1/9-2/15 amounted to a breakdown rate of almost 19 breakdowns per 1,000 starters – far higher than the cheapest claimers. But with only one instance, you can’t quite draw any grand conclusions.
I think some of the love for starters comes from people who don’t want to sell their horses but don’t have anywhere else to put them than in claiming races… and as you know, a lot of horses are getting snapped up that a year ago would never have gotten claimed.