The dust is still swirling around the circumstances of Eight Belle’s untimely demise at the Kentucky Derby two weeks ago today. The sandstorm kicked up in the wake of the heavily televised tragedy will have at least two immediate repercussions, and maybe three (if we’re lucky).
1-More viewers gritting their teeth in fear of another catastrophic breakdown.
2-Overall, fewer animal-adoring viewers. At some point we just can’t bear to watch, right?
and…
3-An increased awareness of the safety issues surrounding the sport—which may eventually lead to real change in the thoroughbred racing industry.
The Scientific American’s excellent article (thanks to Gina at PetConnection for the find) is exemplary of the kind of press Eight Belle’s dramatic death has occasioned. It reports on the cries for reform from all levels of sporting society along with the industry’s variously exculpatory and conciliatory words and deeds.
But then it goes further than most, detailing the budding science behind some of the calls for change. Genetic investigation into the cause of catastrophic injury is a nascent field of study, as is research into track surface safety. Both areas of study hold much promise for the future of racehorse safety. But it’s taken a long time to amass any significant data—and most of it still forthcoming.
It’s just a short piece. And though I was gratified to see so well regarded a periodical as The Scientific American embrace the significance of equine biology in the context of thoroughbred racing reform, the story could’ve been more complete.
After all, it might’ve wondered why a sport so ancient would fail to seek out the answers to these questions in advance of a spiraling decline in thoroughbred thriftiness over the past decade or three. But not even the Scientific American’s perfect.
In case you’re wondering, I won’t be watching the Preakness today (mostly in principle but also because I fear for my delicate animal sensibilities). And though I’m still in Triple Crown withdrawal, it’s clear I’m not going to suffer alone.
We’ll all sit and read a book, watch a movie, cook dinner, anything…as long as we’re not complicit in stirring up the dust swirling around the next “Cripple Crown” casualty. At least not until the industry wakes up to the need for the kind of research needed to reform its antiquated ways.
Add Comment7 Comments
I won't be watching (ok, well I'm in the UK so it would take some searching to watch it even if I wanted to).
My fascination with the horse racing industry (all 70-something of the thoroughbred series books as a kid) has been replaced by a sense of foreboding, sadness, and a handful of disgust. I know that its going to happen again (1.5-2/1000 starts), I don't need to watch it.
Alli May 17th, 2008 06:37:00 PM
NBC Sports dedicated the first half hour of the two hour show to a panel discussion of safety issues in horse racing, and an interview with Alex Waldrop of the NTRA on the same. The panel was weighted towards the industry, featuring Dr. Brammage, Gary Stevens, and Larry Jones (trainer of Eight Belles) on the one hand and a New York Times writer who has been very outspoken against Thoroughbred racing on the other, but I think the point was made that everybody feels there is a need for accountability. It was very enlightening, and also cause for a lot of optimism. The industry not only is woken up to the need for research, it is actively doing it and taking steps. Waldrop, for example, said that due to lobbying efforts by the NTRA, most if not all states with horse racing will be banning *any* steroid use as of Jan. 1, 2009. Even if some states do not ban steroids, if enough of them do it will amount to a national ban, given the tendency of trainers to move horses from track to track.
Plenty more research needs to be done, to be sure. Even that 1.5 fatalities per 1000 starts is not a scientifically established number, and nobody knows yet whether synthetic track surfaces will turn out to be safer than dirt. But the industry *is* doing the research and taking it seriously. I admire your column deeply, but I'm a bit saddened that you don't seem to have researched yourself what the industry is doing before calling it out for not doing anything.
regina May 17th, 2008 09:36:00 PM
I am in racing withdrawal, as I have decided not to watch; for the first time in as long as I can remember. I am aware that Big Brown won the race easily, but I fear for his safety (and his life) in the Belmont three weeks from now. I looked at the websites showing the state of his hooves. The Belmont is the longest race at 1 1/2 miles; and on a fast track, I wonder how all that polymer (on both front hooves) will hold up. Severe quarter cracks can result in fractures of the cannon bone under severe stress (such as a long race). If I owned that horse, there is no way he would be racing. I know that on June 7, I will be holding my breath (but not watching the race). I only hope and pray he will not finish his career in the same manner as Eight Belles.
Shellie May 18th, 2008 01:12:00 PM
Here is an analysis of Big Brown's pedigree that was posted on an email list I belong to.
"If you look at Big Brown's pedigree, you will see that his Sire is Boundary, who was retired for injuries after only 6 races. Boundary is by Danzig, who managed only 3 races (all victories) before injuries retired him. Big Brown's dam was Mien, who raced twice with a maiden win at Pimlico, before she was done for good. Mien was a daughter of the great sire Nureyev, who had to be retired after just three starts on the track."
You would think that the industry would realize that in spite of the brilliance of these horses, they are passing on a fatal flaw. If I was breeding Thoroughbreds, I wouldn't breed to Big Brown.
Linda H May 18th, 2008 03:31:00 PM
I agree with Linda - if you breed only for speed, something else will give. Speed comes from heart, and a horse with poor conformation with heart will win over a horse with almost perfect conformation and no heart. Heart is not often passed on genetically either - it comes from someplace else.
Racehorses are athletes and need to be treated as such - raced later in life when their bones have fused properly. Support bandages and boots when needed. Treat them like the athlete they are.
Robin May 18th, 2008 08:56:00 PM
"Support bandages and boots when needed. Treat them like the athlete they are."
That and I'll do you one better -- how about they must race on their natural abilities? Couple that with they must be deemed "fit to continue" after the race in order to place? No special shoeing -- now THAT'd be a sea change since TB hooves are notoriously crappy. It'd require a change in breeding practices AND letting the wee ones grow up and grow up under more natural circumstances.
As far as the call for elimination of steroid use, I'm all for it and it's about time, but how will it be enforced? How about a call for the elimination of the use of other substances? (Lasix anyone?)
What TB racing needs to do is address its culture of corruption and winning at any cost. I just don't see how that can happen.
Deanna May 19th, 2008 10:29:00 AM
If, as some researchers believe, the breakdowns are based on microscopic bone injury support of the limb would be counterproductive. So far the use of shoe padding and toe grabs have been associated with *increased* risk of injury.
emily May 19th, 2008 01:43:00 PM
Add Commment