Racing databases, high risk horse alerts and phasing out Lasix in Kentucky

Mister Park 2007-2012.

High Risk Entry Alert

At last, a potentially good use for one of the US horse racing industry’s databases. Unfortunately the data they collect is given out on a voluntary not mandatory basis.

Oh, well. Like everything else it seems, it is a start. And any tool that will spare some of these Thoroughbred racehorses from breakdown and death, or run into the ground until they can barely stand let alone run, is welcome.

MATT HEGARTY writing for the Daily Racing Form reports:

LEXINGTON, Ky. – The Jockey Club announced plans on Wednesday to launch a system this August that will send alerts to racing offices when a horse that is deemed to be at high risk of an injury is entered in a race.

The alert, according to the Jockey Club, will be intended to notify the racing office that the horse should be subjected to additional scrutiny during its pre-race veterinary examinations, which are required in nearly every major racing jurisdiction. The criteria that will determine whether a horse is at high risk of an injury will be gleaned from ongoing analyses of a project to collect data on racing injuries that is being administered by the Jockey Club, the organization said.

The alert system is so far the most tangible outgrowth of the injury database, which has collected data on millions of races since being launched in late 2008. Continue reading >>

It is not just us cranky old, never satisfied racehorse advocates who are looking at this with slightly raised eyebrows. The alert idea is getting mixed reviews around the industry.

Speaking of opinion splitters, how about the highly contentious topic of race-day medications, especially Lasix.

Phasing Out Lasix in Kentucky

Bottle of Lasix. Don’t you love the words in blue on the twist-off cap. My sentiment exactly. Google image.

In other news, the Kentucky Horse Racing today voted 7-5-1 to phase out the use of Lasix (Salix) the anti-bleeder medication on racedays for two-year olds in listed and graded stakes. If given final approval for implementation, the new regulation will start in 2013 or perhaps even as late as 2014.

Horses who race on the lower rungs, particularly claimers, rarely get any sort of consideration do they? Again, we welcome any change for the better — whatever shape, form or size it comes in.

I wish US racing would ban claiming races altogether since they do not know how to conduct them without crippling or killing horses.

Anyway, a hearty congratulations to the KHRC for getting this far. Few understand what machinations they have gone through to get this much done.

Oh look. It’s not over yet.

@gregoryahall (sports writer for the Louisville Courier-Journal) tweeted:

Horsemen’s rep Marty Maline says he believes there’s a chance to overturn the #KHRC #Lasix vote when new reg goes before legislature.

Horsemen’s rep? This is the problem. There are too few horsemen left in US racing, if anyone even understands what that means anymore.

How tiresome this all is.

Kentucky Derby: Racing with 22,000 pounds of trouble

Horses leave the starting gate for the start of the 133rd Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs in Louisville, Ky., Saturday, May 5, 2007. (AP Photo/Rob Carr)

“The 20-horse Derby field lets in owners who should be eating hot dogs at Beulah Park in Ohio. Few of the half-dozen or more undeserving horses racing in the Derby are ever heard from again. You say you had a horse in the Derby? So did around 200 others last decade.

So writes Jay Cronley for ESPN in “22,000 pounds of trouble“.

Mr Cronley opens his article with the statement:

“It’s never too early to complain about the size of the Kentucky Derby field, 20 horses, a few of whom know how to run correctly.”

We agree with Cronley, even if we are coming at this issue from different angles.

Not long ago, already thinking about this, I surveyed 56 Thoroughbred horse racing people, from owners to trainers, riders to grooms, a handful of breeders and even a few hacks (a term of endearment for writers), asking them what they believe the optimum number of horses starting in the Kentucky Derby is.

Everyone responded except the writers. Of those answering, 39 stated 14 as the ideal number of runners in the Kentucky Derby; 12 stated the number is fine as is.

Almost all of those responding elaborated on their answers, including statements such as, it would be safer for horse and jockey and ensure a higher caliber field of runners if the number of starters was reduced to 14. Others agreeing with the number 14 said it would enhance the chances of there being another Triple Crown winner. There were also many among the respondents who rejected the idea that too many horses deserving to win the Kentucky Derby would lose their chance if the field were limited to 14.

The most interesting notion coming out of my informal survey was one from a Lexington based breeder who is strongly in favor of keeping a large field for the Kentucky Derby. What he objects to are the starting stalls. He states that they should be done away with and the Kentucky Derby should be run from a standing start.

” . . . get all that damned metal out of the way. Let the horses line up and jump off all at the same time. No gates and you eliminate all the problems. You could easily have up to 24 horses. Churchill [Downs] is plenty wide enough.”

What many added concerning the question of field size for the Kentucky Derby, and always seems to be the bottom line whenever horse racing is discussed is . . . . the bottom line. Money.

“Sadly, you will never get the gambling establishment to go for putting the number of runners back to 14,” said a leading trainer. “This is one of their biggest betting days of the year.”

Yes, the gambling aspect is a huge consideration. With a large field, there are more horses to bet on. But the bottom line does not begin and end with the gambling.

There is the prize money, opportunities for breeding incentives to be won, plus the fame and accolades that can be spun into cash by trainers and jockeys.

Of course the bottom line must always be considered. It would be foolish to try to leave it out. To the winner goes the spoils, as they say. My question is, where is the balance?

Is putting on a Kentucky Derby with 20 optimistic hopefuls, with perhaps only a dozen of whom should really be there, really preferable to having a safer, more honest race among 14 best bred, high class Thoroughbreds, whose mettle has been tested, running for those famous roses?

‘Luck’ bad for horses as two die in making of HBO series

Due to a lack of safety precautions for its horse actors, two reportedly died during the filming of HBO series Luck.

The HBO television series “Luck”, which focuses on gambling and other goings on in and around American horse racing, does not shy away from the breakdown and deaths of racehorses that in real life occurs all too often. However, in the making of this series, fact and fiction have become tragically mixed. Due to lack of safety precautions for its horse actors, two reportedly died in connection with the filming of two episodes of “Luck.”

The Los Angeles Times reports that an investigation is underway:

HBO’s “Luck,” which examines the world of thoroughbred racing and betting, has been investigated due to charges of mistreatment of horses.

The New York Observer reported that the show came under scrutiny after reports that two horses broke their legs during production and had to be euthanized. The pilot of the series, which premiered last month, contains a scene in which a horse breaks its leg during a race and has to be put to sleep.

The network told the Observer that the horse filmed in that race in the pilot was not actually harmed, but another horse in that episode was euthanized after its leg fractured. The other horse death occured during the filming of the seventh episode.

According to source, the American Humane Association, who hands out the “No animals were harmed . . . ” tag in filmed entertainments, did not make this claim for the two episodes of “Luck” where a horse was killed, opting instead to say that “American Humane Association monitored the animal action.”

To our view, that statement carries all sorts of implications, one being, if the AHA were on the scene watching, nothing bad must have happened. Perhaps the AHA should create a new tagline to make it perfectly clear to viewers what happened to the animals used. In this case, how about “A horse was killed in the making of this episode.”

Read full report at latimes.com >>