2008’s Kentucky Derby disgusted us all. Its Preakness flew by like a blur. Finally, against the prevailing “wisdom” of racing’s spinners, this year’s Belmont gave proof to the sport’s lack of soundness. The "cripple crown" played itself out, culminating in the whimper its detractors uncomfortably anticipated.
With over-hyped one-liners promising glory as hasn’t been seen since a star lit up the Bethlehem night, Big Brown’s “inevitable” storming of the Crown careened to a halt in the split second it took his jockey to give up the fight when he found his horse just wasn’t there.
Brilliantly played by the jockey prince. Too bad the cavalcade of frogs behind this amazing horse can’t be persuaded to skulk back into the slime they came from after their very public comeuppance. Too bad the horse has to shoulder the ignominy they thrust upon him.
The yearling training sessions. The months of steroid shots. The hoof patched with silly putty.
Only a renegade owner promising the sport an influx of hedge fund cash. Only an investment trained by arguably the dastardliest figure in thoroughbred training. Then there’s the industry that’s lost its way by adopting precocious speed as the only metric for success—not to mention the veterinary establishment (Dr. Bramlage, et al) that's misplaced its responsibility to the animals it pledges to serve.
Only this team of racing’s finest could conjure up such a perfect storm of disgrace.
All week I shuddered to read of Big Brown’s industry-saving status as de-facto Triple Crown winner. My rejection of this designation and the fear that his win could mean the propagation of his industry’s ills even led me to (childishly) spurn the “Go Big Brown !” button the UPS carrier handed me in good faith.
But it’s not Big Brown’s fault that thoroughbred racing’s in so foul a state—financially and ethically. It’s not his fault he couldn’t finish first. A win was no more his responsibility than saving the industry others sacrificed his health for.
To pin the survival of an industry on a horse is no more reasonable than laying down four bucks to win just one come race day. The industry needs to stop relying on its horses’ lives and more on its own ability to resurrect itself.
In fact, it’s my view that the long-term fitness of thoroughbred racing’s current top athletes is a perfect metaphor for the industry’s decline. Short-term thinking will only get you equally as far.
To be sure, this year’s blighted Triple Crown attempt will go down in history. I only hope the horse doesn’t go down with it.
Add Comment12 Comments
Dr. Khuly, Thank you for this blog. Your eloquence and heart-felt feelings on this subject surely provokes thought to the most hardened individuals and racing fans.I truly believe it is a soon-to-be extinct sport and means of gambling (along with greyhound racing), and not soon enough in my book.
Barbara A. Albright/New Hampshire June 8th, 2008 01:47:00 PM
Well said.
I know there are many people who watch these things because they love to watch the horses. I'm wondering if we couldn't convince those types to tune into a kinder, gentler horse show -- where the beautiful animals are paraded around in a show of gorgeousness, maybe galloped, but not raced for money the way they are now. When you mix gambling with living things, bad things happen.
I feel very nervous for Big Brown, and I hope he gets the love and care he deserves for the rest of his life after having his put at risk for someone's pocket book. It's too exploitative -- it's all about the drunk men and their fawning southern bells in big hats and wagers and pretending to have a large you-know-what when they aren't really doing anything at all, it's that horse theyve been by definition exploiting and abusing whose glory they are stealing, because they have no other way to feel like a big man or make a big wad. Tsssk tssssk.
Stefani June 8th, 2008 05:33:00 PM
>"I'm wondering if we couldn't convince those types to tune into a kinder, gentler horse show ..."
I'm one of "those types," and I follow racing year-round, older handicap horses, not youngsters and not cheap claimers. I'm not a gambler. I know lots of people in horse-racing, and I know lots of them love and care for their horses. I could tell you stories, lots of them, that show they care a lot more than all the people who watched maybe one race a year and are tut-tutting now.
Big Brown's connections are dirtbags who need to crawl back under their respective rocks, and racing needs to reform. That latter? People inside the industry have been fighting for reform for years. Now, they'll have the upper hand, and you will see changes.
But abuses exist in all disciplines, and to pretend they are just in horse-racing is pure BS. The majority of horses sent to slaughter aren't off-track Thoroughbreds, which constitute about 10 percent. You can find former top cutting horses, gorgeous older trail horses and lots of well-bred broodmares from all breeds being picked up by the killer buyers. Check out the Fugly horse blog to see what gets sold and where those horses end up.
The toss-offs of "kindler, gentler" horse shows end up hurt, unwanted and in the hands of killer buyers more often than Thoroughbred race-horses do.
I'm for major racing reform, as are many in the racing world. California has been ahead of this curve for years. I'm NOT interested in watching halter classes instead of racing. Three-day eventing, maybe, but considering the recent spate deaths in that sport, well ...
This fall, you can find me at the Breeders Cup World Championships. In California, where steroid use has been banned and synthetic tracks mandated.
By the way, Hall of Fame trainer Nick Zito (trainer of the Belmont winner yesterday) and his wife Kim have long been involved in saving racehorses, supporting programs that get them trained for new "jobs" like show jumpers or just retired to be pasture pets. I think it's pretty interesting that when a Zito-trained horse ruined Smart Jones' Triple Crown big, Zito apologized to the connections and the fans.
Yesterday, he quoted Proverbs instead, aiming this at Big Brown's trainer: "Humility comes before honor."
Gina Spadafori June 8th, 2008 06:44:00 PM
My favorite races are turf races, especially steeplechase events. There's more interest and drama to these races, maturing horses instead of little babies, and oh yes, TURF. If we must compete horses in events of speed, turf is much healthier to run on than dirt since the grass root systems help absorb some of the shock transmitted to the horse's leg. With that said, I find show jumping and dressage of more interest than racing. Racing, no matter how gussied up it is, is just running in a circle, after all. I've no doubt there are abuses in these events as well but since they practically demand an "older" horse with years of experience, they're more palatable in my book.
Meri June 8th, 2008 11:51:00 PM
Yes, horse racing needs to clean up it's act. So does greyhound racing. But horses were made to run and so were greyhounds.Gentler horse shows??? What do you think happens to those horses when their career is over? Or the million dollar breeding didn't come out has planned. What happens to that horse? I've seen horses hurt jumping in "gentler shows". Steeple racing is a very exciting event. People and horses have died in those. How about AKC lure coursing events? Dogs are hurt on a regular basis. I don't hear anyone screaming to end those sports! Lets talk about dog agility events. How about freestyle frisbie? Should that be banned because dog break teeth catching frisbies?
So what am I trying to say. Clean up the sports. Don't ban them. When you ban something you loose control of it Pot has been banned for decades... That ban worked great didn't it?
As for vets not living up to their responsibilty to the animals?? I agree. It took me ten years to find one that cared about my dog more than her wallet. It's been my experience that most vets care more about money than their clients.
Ken June 9th, 2008 12:50:00 AM
Respectuflly, there's a huge difference between an industry standard that starts young horses to hard work before their bones are fused, and "accidents" that can happen in any activity.
I was a competitive rider for many years. I never saw even one serious accident befall a horse in those activities, in all those years. I heard a few stories, and saw a few minor injuries (they really were accidents). But the only serious injuries I saw were to riders, which is as it should be.
In English riding (I competed in mostly jumper, but also 3-day, dressage, and more), we don't start our horses until they're at least 3-years-old, specifically because, for example, splint bones don't fuse until around that time. With the remarkably-low accident rate (suggesting the activities, themselves, are not especially dangerous to horses), there's no denying there are some unscrupulous types in the world of Olympic-discipline equestrian sports.
(One well-known rider I'd come up against, every now and then, was openly suspected of hammering his horses hooves - a practice that, when in combination with suddenly raising a rail in the warm-up ring as the horse jumps over it so the horse hits one of its now-tender hooves, causes a great deal of pain to the horse, and makes it more careful in the following competition. Another well-known rider I used to compete against was spectacularly ousted when he was found to be using cocaine. Neither are examples that jumper or dressage or 3-day are particularly dangerous to horses. And neither does the occasional freak accident in those disciplines, although I agree any serious accident should be investigated in order ascertain if it could reasonably be prevented in the future.)
I no longer train horses or dogs (and have been outspoken against trainign animals for any activity that is likely to cause fear or lead to injury), but if there is evidence that injuries are common, as a matter of course in participating in an activity, then that activity must either stop or be made safer. If injuries are caused by over-training (or other flaws of human decision making), then more education is needed. If injuries are caused because animals are being started too young, then there should be a minimum age limit. And equally as important, we shouldn't lump random, occasional accidents together with systemic abuses that are known to lead to specific kinds of preventable harm. I mean, there's a difference between saying that, for example, according to some crash test studies, SUV's are more likely to be involved in a rollover accident, and saying that 30% of drunk drivers drive Fords, so Fords shoudl be banned because they lead to drunk driving. The logic just doesn't follow.
Marjorie June 9th, 2008 10:59:00 AM
What part of "racing needs reform" did you miss in my comment?
I also noticed you completely disregarded the point that cast-offs from all disciplines end up with the killer buyers in numbers greater than the racing industry's. When an animal's market value as a working animal falls below that of his value as meat ... well, off he goes.
My point is there's a lot of bad stuff that goes on with horses, and blaming racing for all of it (or even most of it) is crap.
Gina Spadafori June 9th, 2008 01:10:00 PM
Gina, I'm not so megalomaniacal that I assume all comments are directed towards me. ;-) But I don't want to be oblivious, either, in case your reply was for my benefit.
Speaking solely for myself, I was responding mostly to Ken's comment, but also, generally, the views that suggest because all animal-related activities will occasionally result in accidental injury to the animal, rigourously racing very young horses is "okay" or "not alone" or "no worse than..."
It's not a sort of mea culpa for anyone involved with animal sports. There are issues with horse racing that I have always opposed, for decades; issues that simply don't exist in other animal-related activities. The most basic being, working young horses hard, before they're physically mature enough. There's no reason for doing so, except to maximize profits, at great detriment to the youngsters, themselves.
The issue of horses no longer being of value is an important one, as well. In the riding disciplines in which I was involved, horses are generally sold from owner to owner, until a ripe old age. The main reason for this is they're very well-trained and cared for, and there are always novice riders looking for well-trained horses to start on. In the end, the old ones do probably make their ways to slaughter. (I don't see a large number of 30-year-old horses at show stables, for obvious reasons.) But there are plenty who are put out to pasture, and die a natural death, in a paddock. Again, I think their protection is the training they receive. A horse that is not well-trained and, therefore, is not an especially desirable riding horse, is likely in much greater jeopardy of being sold to slaughter.
Marjorie June 9th, 2008 06:20:00 PM
"I think their protection is the training they receive. A horse that is not well-trained and, therefore, is not an especially desirable riding horse, is likely in much greater jeopardy of being sold to slaughter."
This is an extremely important point! A horse who isn't even halter-trained is really at high risk if his situation changes, for example the people who own him have to sell the ranch, etc.
When I did breed rescue (for dogs) I always put some training on the dogs, made sure they were house-trained, had some basic obedience and even a trick or two. (These were Shelties, so it wasn't exactly difficult!) A sweet, socialized dog with good manners has a lot better chance of being rehomed.
True for horses, too.
Gina Spadafori June 9th, 2008 06:42:00 PM
Hear hear for training!
I was called at 10:00PM on Friday about a dog in the neighboring county's shelter, so Saturday morning I was knocking on the back door to try to find the employee contact I was referred to. And 30 minutes later "Oliver", a 70 pound seven year old bulldog and I left the building.
Oliver is seven years old, intact and an ass. It would be easy to blame the hormones, but the truth is he is suffering from a total lack of training, manners and guidance. And he was apparently kept by someone whom he could buffalo as he is very used to trying to intimidate women. This does not fly with me and the past 3 days have been a big eye opener for him. He is beginning to realize that there is a new order in his universe. And signs are favorable that he'll be just fine with that.
Had this dog gone through most shelters temperament testing he would not have passed. And he will need to prove he can be a reformed soul before we can place him. Neutering will help but it will only be the icing on the cake. Training and retraining will be what buys this guy a new life.
Most dogs, horses etc... that end up homeless with behavioural issues do not land in a place that can deal with rehabilitating their minds. Lucky ones land in rescues or shelters who evaluate them as individuals, not as simply a warm body that needs to leave to make cage or stall space or that can be sold by the pound. Sweet and well trained animals are more likely to find advocates that will help protect them and find them a new life.
JenniferJ June 9th, 2008 07:53:00 PM
I'm behind on my blog reading.....
The USEF met over the weekend. Looking to lessen the number of horses & riders injured/killed in eventing. 2 horses died and one seriously injured rider in Rolex this year.
We humans tend to take everything to extremes, it doesn't seem to matter whether it is related to animals or not. Riding a bike faster, throwing a ball harder or quad jumps in figure skating....
Jan June 11th, 2008 06:49:00 PM
wholesale oil paintings
kidsjobs August 24th, 2009 09:37:09 PM
Add Commment